Absolutist positions are rarely sensible when you think about it. Just as an example, if you can lower the standard by 10% but double recruitment, that's probably the better move. The US military is struggling BADLY with recruitment. You fight with the army you have, not the one you wish you had.
Lol the standards are always reduced because a warm body is better than no body. If you ask soldiers from previous generations, it was a lot harder in the past than now training wise solely because men got weaker and they need positions filled.
Amen, Standards should be raised. Every truck driver, clerk , mechanic should be able to to jump into the roll of Infantry, War isn't fair it may decide that for us..
It's far more complicated. Can a female, even if she were to make it through selection, be able to sustain? Does this increase lethality and overall effectiveness? According to the most comprehensive study conducted by the Marines, the answer is no on all accounts.
Which is the right answer. A lot of male PTSD sufferers would probably have been disqualified from serving in combat if properly screened in advance. Thing is, in a war big enough to require conscription, you can't always be picky enough to take only the ones - male or female - that are 100 percent cut out for it.
I am a retired Paramedic with 17+ years in EMS. I am retired because the standard for women physically was less than what was required for men. I had to do all of the heavy work. Anything that took physical power or effort was mine to do. I injured both of my shoulders with this female partner. I was the first she took out, and after the third person injured by her inability to perform, she was moved out of the field work. Having a physically capable woman can be helpful, but without that ability to carry the weight of the tasks to be delivered, someone always gets hurt. This stupidity has to stop.
The hidden cost. Plus there is the natural tendency to protect women - which is a positive trait. We know from resistance fighters, women are very valuable, but for normal military, there are so many excellent other roles.
I made it 25 years as a Paramedic only because I was promoted to a field supervisor position and off the truck. I had several female partners over the years. Most were knowledgeable Paramedics and EMT's and probably smarter than me. But as you obviously know, you can't lift a 400 pound patient with your big brain. I do remember one girl who would fight you if you tried to do her job but for the most part they would step back and expect me and the 1st responders to do the heavy lifting. Ive had one shoulder surgery and the other hurts me every day. I know exactly what you're saying.
It’s not only th😂at. It was that originally it was a male oriented profession. Then they brought in laws that declared it was sexist to have more men than women. However after these laws were implemented, in areas where there were more women than men that was fine.
Same in my job. They're paid the same but expect you to take over for the labor and hard work because you're a man. "I want the easy part of the job." It happens so much.
Woman here. My daughter is serving currently in the Air Force ( C&C officer) and I can't be more proud. yet putting women in infantry units doesn't make sense. They simply lack the physical criteria!
@@AustrianPainter14 What did you do in the military? I was an infantry Marine, albeit for a short time due to an injury causing medical separation. The tooth-to-tail ratio of our military is a huge part of the reason for our capabilities. POGs are vital to the success of the warfighters.
@@AustrianPainter14 Did my 20! With four combat tours. Got tired of the bureaucracy. It was harder to kick a bad Soldier out than to keep a good Soldier in. It took almost a whole year to process out a Soldier who couldn't pass a PT test.
spdbggy9675 Wasn’t my question. I didn’t ask you about your history. I asked you if you will be filling the ranks. In case you didn’t notice there is a huge shortfall.
As a retired Special Forces Soldier I believe the FIRST THING that has to change is get rid of seperate Male and Female physical fitness standards! The enemy will not discriminate. Anyone who thinks a 120-140lb woman will be able to defeat a 210-230lb man is mistaken. How is that woman going to carry a 220lb man out of the kill zone? Why is there no women in the NFL? Women can not do everything a man can do the same as a man can't do everything a woman can, they can complement each others strengths and minimize their limitations. America must employ and use women better than just allowing them in every MOS. Yes, I believe women can be effective in SOME Special Forces missions but NOT on a 12 man Operational Detachment Alpha.
Well put.....women and men are not "equal"; they are "complimentary" by nature (yin / yang). Having exclusionary requirements for combat positions is simple common sense...which is what we need to get back to in this country.
It’s just part of the psyop dude Nobody with a brain in their head thinks women can contend with men Why yall are so easily manipulated is the real question
As a former army drill instructor I noticed some key differences between the men and women coming into the system beyond the differing physicality. The men tended to be younger (18-19) and were more interested in getting to shoot their weapons and slept through lectures and the women were 3 years older and more cerebral, took notes and consequently did better on the written tests. Since a lot of a passing score was based on written tests they appeared to be equally qualified. Men were quicker to form effective teams and specialize on tasks such as barracks maintenance. Men had no problem with the idea of a battle buddy who would have your back even if you hated each other's guts most of the time. The women had difficulty with the concept of teams and tended to try to form clicks with friends in other squads or platoons and ignore their assigned buddy. With the guys by the second week the barracks were looking perfect most of the time. The women's barracks looked substandard most of the time and even in the last week they'd be arguing about whose turn it was to perform a particular task. On another note when my daughter-in law was deployed to Afghanistan with the 82nd we sent a Care Package so they could prepare a meal that wasn't typical. She sent us a picture of her section eating the meal and I noticed that her squad was entirely women and the other squad was all men. When I inquired why the difference she told me that the women stayed inside the fire base and the men performed missions outside the wire. Not sure how widespread this practice was, but it certainly was not equitable. Comments on the comments: Not every individual involved in basic training is/was an Sgt E-5 or higher. When I was going through basic training in 1970 there were a large number of draftee E-4's who were combat veterans spending their last six months in service passing on survival skills. I used Drill Instructor not as a title but as how I saw my role. Which was to teach them how to stay alive. To clarify I was a PSG for six years with a infantry platoon before being a SFC Senior Drill Sgt. My observations may be dated and are based on my experience as a Senior Drill Sgt. in the late 80's when we were transitioning to an all volunteer force. I had all male cycles, all females cycles, and coed cycles (separate platoons but both genders in the company). Yes in the 80's there were still written tests. The Task, Condition, and Standard--Go/No Go was being implemented. And, yes I used to think I was billy bad-ass, even did the Ranger thing. Now I'm just and old man who thought my life observations might shed a light on a difference between men and women beyond relative body strength. My wife has sisters, we have daughters and granddaughters. I have watched them interact act as they grew up and matured. Not that much has changed through the years on how they interact. On a personal note. I think everybody regardless of MOS should be trained to fight. You don't need to be able to ruck for 30 days but you do need to be able to carry a combat load and be functional for at least 12 hours minimum. I am basing the time on requirement on the probability that a QRF could relieve a rear echelon unit that is not normally engaged in combat but was attacked by the enemy while in movement or in a base area. The idea of "should we assign women to combat" is really subsumed by the fact that many women are going to be exposed to combat merely because they are in the military not because they signed up for a combat role. The moral dilemma is, knowing this, do we allow women in the military at all. And if the answer is yes how do we prepare them to function and survive.
Your first segment is interesting to hear the difference in how they interact. I'd always imagined women would be better at teams but apparently not. And it's ironic and funny that they don't keep the barracks clean.
I had a female drill instructor tell me the EXACT same thing about women's inability to bond, form a team, admit another woman is better at something than she is and ask for help, etc., compared to the men. She actually told me she hated having female flights. (AF TI)
I can imagine that the men who go outside the wire feel more comfortable with another man watching their back than a woman. I have no military experience, but I am 62 years old and have been married for close to 40 years, with two grown daughters. Nothing you tell me about women is surprising at all. Men and women have entirely different evolutionary histories, so it should not surprise us that we think differently. Men have had to deal with armed combat for hundreds of thousands of years, women have not. We should expect men to have, generally speaking, the mental wherewithal to deal with combat and forming teams necessary to that task in ways that women find difficult.
@@maluminse1 Women are more concerned about who's turn it is than keeping the place clean. Guys will just keep the place clean, and if they think someone is shirking, that person will get punished by the others in some imaginative way...and if the punished man tells the drill instructor, the punishment will be even worse [by his team].
We should not send our military into harms way. I am more concerned that ALL people should defend their family and homes ie have access and know how to use guns.
THIS was a prime concern, and was trained during our MOB on the way to Iraq in 2009. Combat Aviation, Attack Recon Apache chopper battalions. No 130lb woman wearing 70 lbs of armor and still more in weapons and ammo, in 120 degree F heat is going to drag a 240 lb, 6 foot 4 inch man dressed the same way anywhere. Period. She will simply become a second casualty thereby endangering further troops and the mission.
@@randybisbee848 Me, being a 150 lb, 5 foot 6 inch man would be hard pressed to carry that man anywhere. And I wouldn't be able to drag him far. You might want to consider keeping each unit to similar sized humans.
War is a guy thing! It would be very hard to call a woman a buddy in a field of combat, and the majority of woman’s DNA is quite emotional and not sure if they wouldn’t be totally up to a front line combat zone in attack mode! Radio operator, maybe!
Matthew 5:37 - "But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." It was not a direct answer but a careful choice of words alluding to the obvious. I would have more respect if they would just say "no, women do not meet the standard for combat positions." But it goes beyond qualification as well. Combat is not suited for the nurturing nature of women, and nor should women be exposed to the violent carnage of battle let alone participating in it, in a civil society. Brilliant semantics, not a firm stance.
When you listening her every time bragging on how she served in the military you would think she was a female Rambo while in reality she was an admin in a medical unit. Of course now that she scored a job flipping on all of her position she can pander to the electorate that she's been sucking up in the past year or so
Too careful, if you are too careful in Jordan's own words you'll never progress through the thought process, you need to be able to make mistakes in language if you are to work through anything conceptual
Also, the IDF tried putting females in front line combat and they stopped. The men's moral plummeted and the women struggled due to being weaker physically.
Two things; First, I have heard from German veterans and read about the women in the Soviet Army who were matched against the German Wermacht. The policy of the Germans was to immediately liquidate female prisoners. And exactly the same for female partisan fighters as well. No time was alotted for sexual assaults. Interrogation was carried out, sometimes, and then a pistol shot to the back of the head. Period. Second, I was infantry in Vietnam. 1st Brigade, 101st Airborne Division Volunteered to go back twice more. I have never personally served around a woman who could do my job in a rifle company, in battalion Recon platoon or later, in the 1st Brigade LRRP platoon. When the leader says "pick up the gun" the M240 machine gun weighs about 27 pounds and the ammo is seven pounds per hundred rounds. Basic load was five hundred rounds. "You do what you gotta do". That includes putting a 180 pound casualty on a hovering med-evac. If you can't do your part, you shouldn't be there. WAR IS NOT A SOCIAL STATEMENT.
@@tomgoodwin9161 the machine gun is assigned to a squad. The assignments are divided up in the squad the ammo is carried by another,etc.There are men that cannot do it. You heard counts of Germans in a particular area,not all the same. You know that. Women are generally a better shot,you might want that at your back. Better than a guy who can’t hit the side of a barn?
@@Cab520 That there are men that can't carry ammo is not evidence that women can - especially for long periods in adverse conditions. If a woman is 'generally a better shot' that does not mean that would hold up under combat conditions. Systems correct themselves. If we don't right the ship we will get our ass handed to us.
@@Cab520 I agree, the Russians had great female snipers, but they might have been segregated into their own units. (I had an infantry MOS, but I admit I was a lousy shot)
tomgodwin Thanks for your service. I absolutely agree, it's all about standards, not gender. Libs make everything about race, gender, or sexual orientation.
The thing with Soviet women in WW2 lis that entire villages were being shot to death by the SS, and so women petitioned the government for the right to be in combat positions because they saw going down fighting as a better alternative than just getting killed with no way to defend themselves. Whether or not or you agree with the politics of the Soviets, they were fighting the Nazis, who wanted to exterminate them. Women who had previous training in flying or sharpshooting proved to be very combat effective in women only units or in mixed units. The Germans particularly hated them and kept track of their kills. Women also “manned” artillery in anti aircraft units and were very effective. The German approach to Stalingrad was held back for days primarily by young women who had just graduated high school and a single male commanding officer. What women are not good at is being plain infantry soldiers, ie hand to hand combat, carrying gear around. Women can be trained to use specialized equipment according to their skills and can be just as effective as men. It just requires an impartial view of each genders’ strengths and weaknesses.
Imagine throwing a woman into the utter horror of Pelilu. Men trying to deal with something like that dont need the added stress of a woman in their midst. Remember too that soldiers are 18-19 without extensive experience dealing with women.
@@dmiller2036💯💯💯 thank! High testosterone levels amongst the males and easy soft Oklahoma 2s (females) getting newly discovered attention from the opposite sex... Smh unnecessary distractions ought to be discluded
i didn’t know who she was until today. apparently she’s on a terror watchlist for her deals with Asaad and Putin. also she gives me trans vibes…i’m not sure she’s a woman.
(as an Infantryman) .. Everyone misses the point here. It has nothing to do with personal performance (when you tear it down to its most fundamental aspect). In infantry roles, women simply add a negative element to the comradery (comaraderie) of the men. It's a net negative. We see this throughout history.. and you can see it in practice in all aspects of life regarding tight groups of men. Even if we didn't need to lower standards, the negative effect would still exist. Lowering standards is just an additional negative to the overall mission.
@@gabbyyeargain If stating what should be obvious to any objective observer makes me sexist, well, I guess I am. Tell you what, when women can whip me at arm wrestling, they can be in combat arms, be cops, firemen, etc. Until then, I'll just be a 'sexist'n and you can continue to be an un-realist.
@@BickleyLTO you’re totally correct in that you are sexist and misogynist and not to mention ignorant in thinking that men cannot hold themselves accountable for their own “distracting” thoughts.
The Israeli military studied women in combat and found that captured female soldiers are significantly more valuable to the enemy. Also, men tend to not follow orders when women are in danger and will do what it takes to protect the women, perhaps endangering themself, others and perhaps the fate of their nation. It has been argued that men should be trained otherwise. What is the cost of training men to disregard their instincts to protect women?
You can't make Men DNA let go of it those specific men who fighting for their nation with so much love, aggression to protect their country people and families well beings, with brother soliders feeling of letting go comes from knowing he would do the same in case you were caught cause it's for greater good and he actually wanted it as well before his life end in enemy lines but with female instincts kicks in
As an AF officer (40 years ago) I attended army parachute training. There were minimally acceptable standards for sit-ups, chin-ups and squats. Women were just being introduced. The standards were reduced. That is the truth. Every other position in the military should be open but NOT COMBAT.
As a man, I would not take all the dangerous, nasty jobs so females could have all the good jobs. Screw that, let women do all the jobs in the military.
Also a female soldier can be raped quicker than a male GI. Of course a male GI can of course be raped by a man, but in the middle East or other Muslim countries a man wouldn't be raped by a man
I’ve had this conversation with friends that served in combat in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and other places that they couldn’t tell me. Every single one of them said women don’t belong in combat. They can’t pull their weight. They don’t meet the same qualifications the men have to.
Having been in combat I agree but many men who were in combat with me couldn't pull their weight either. I also believe that it is very possible there could be a few women who could. Merit based with correct standards based on the specific job is the best qualifying factor.
Some of the elephants in the room that aren't talked about are: sexual attraction among soldiers, shared showers, barracks, or just space in general....men wanting to save women, menstrual cycles, etc. It seems that the conversation is nothing but landmines to step on. A hardcore enemy of all men doesn't deal with any of that. At a very basic level - do you use resources to provide some separate spaces to women? If not, how does that realistically work? If the unit is filthy and tired and arrives at a river, does everyone peel off and jump in?
Women are physically and mentally unable to keep up with men. Even if you find an Amazon female, adding her to the team degrades the team's effectiveness.
@@mikegraham4255exactly. This is just as important and everyone overlooks this and just focuses purely on the standards. It’s about the social/psychological factors as well which have a big impact on the overall mission
As a retired Firefighter ive been able to work with many brilliant women. Their roles were primarily in EMS which is where they excel. When entering a burning building on a search and rescue mission you have to be confident that your partner has the ability to drag your sorry butt out of the building. This is for the safety of all concerned. Everyone goes through to same physical agility testing. You must meet all the criteria!
@@johnwesner3935 reality. The young generally can do it.the older,30+ getting soft and out of shape. Getting those pouches. If the woman is there she will drag your sorry ass out too. It may be harder,but she will not let you die or die trying to do it. Men think women do not have courage,do not have the same love of country,the same feeling to defend and keep what we have,the same love of people,Adrenalin that kicks in in emergency or when in danger. Well they do. They have the same love of life and survival. Biggest issue there is culture of a man will be there to save and protect. In fact they are not. You are alone and need to defend yourself,by yourself. The reason it generally ends up badly is girls are not taught how to defend and take care of themselves and be prepared for a predator.
I’m a man and know my limitations and would never want to be a firefighter for the reason you mention. I’m 75 but even when I was a young paratrooper in Vietnam I had physical limitations
Youre right the testing is the same, but its been proven, women can fail said test and still become a firefighter. Now, it could be what you said about theyre usually the ones on EMS. It does lessen the effectiveness of the station if a third of your people physically can't go into a building and carry out a 230lb+ person, at the very least, drag them out.
Women were build for giving a birth..as some say its their primary fight. men are build to be firefighters enginners, architectors. Probably even animals in nature wouldnt live in harmony if both genders would do same stuff, instead complement each other with different tasks.
As a woman and retired firefighter I can attest to the fact that no matter how tough you think you are as a woman, an out of shape man of equal height is much stronger! In my prime I was a power lifter and very athletic. I could out lift, out run, out climb most and keep up with the guys. My muscles were to much for my tendons to handle. My body started to break down. I’m now old and I’ve had 20+ orthopedic surgeries! I’m no feminist I just loved doing the same thing guys enjoyed. Had women been able to sign up for combat duty back in the day I would have been at the front of the line! Being older and wiser now I know women should NOT be allowed to fight on our front lines. Also standards should never be lowered in any way for the military, law enforcement or fire departments along with others!
I had to admit that too as a shelf stocker in a grocery store. I had the heaviest aisle and I could do it and I was in very good shape, but I finally asked a fat guy on a weaker aisle to trade me because he could throw frozen fish boxes over his head like it was nothing and they were hurting my back sometimes.
They keep saying they are better than men and if they want to vote, they should be responsible for it. No more just men being EXPENDABLE, they should be too. Make no men units where they always go first, keep the men safe at home. No more fields at the VA with only men's names on them.
That is a common problem Estrogen makes women's tendons way more flexible but they have a much higher injury rate. My thoughts are this: Women have nothing lost at the front lines. All studies have showns that all male teams are way more effective. But you should play to their strenths. There are other jobs too. Radio operator? Air traffic controller? Everything that requires organization and multitasking women usually excel at.
I think she did answer it...if the person has the skill and capability, have been tested and demonstrated they have the ability to do the job, and are the best equipped to do the job, then they should be placed there. That standard, by it's very realism, will absolutely rule out a majority of women and a percentage of men.
I have an issue with that answer, which was fairly rational in itself. How do we prevent people from down the line softening the standard? That's pretty much how we got where we are today. We had standards for police officers, firemen, soldiers, etc, and they all got softened over time. First to include crappier men that just get by, to eventually women. Then you get the people who purposely soften the standard to gain political points. As it is, 99.99%(if not 100) of women are useless for combat, the number is high enough that we benefit more from discarding the option altogether than to allow the possibility of a 0.01% exceptional lady to make it in, because leaving that door open guarantees the softening of the standard isn't far away, for all the wrong reasons mentioned above.
@@user-iu1ru1qz7u I get your concern, but at the end of the day, saying "you need to be male" is ALSO a standard, and can be changed by people down the line as well. The answer to this kind of questions, IMHO, is: we need to recover the principle of teleology. Things exists FOR SOMETHING. Armed Forces exist to WIN WARS. Anything that makes them better AT THAT should be the standard. The same applies to sex (it exists to propagate the species), and the same applies to everything else in life. What furthers their natural objective (teleology) is good, what hinders it is bad.
Introducing a capable woman into an all man unit brings other complexities and problems besides ability. To let that one woman in you must alter multiple things for thousands of men to attempt to maintain the same efficiency and cohesiveness. She has to train, eat, sleep, shower, and change with men - not just on the job in combat, but in the training pipeline and when she is back home. Nobody is going to ever let hormones play a role, including her monthly fluctuation? Nobody is ever going to overextend risk to treat her differently? She's going to average the same career length as a man and never get pregnant, or always be the same strength after pregnancy? Absolutely not. Not worth it, especially in such a high risk environment.
You can’t expect her to be spot on with everything. I’ve seen so many times a woman in uniform has used herself as a way to get preferential treatment. I was threatened as a young E-3 in the Marines by a fellow E-3 female who wanted to come in and boss because she was involved with a Sergeant in the platoon. They don’t even belong in uniform in my opinion.
I really like her. She always takes care to phrase her answer perfectly, is really smart and keeps her cool. She should have a brilliant career in front of her.
@@ryleighloughty3307 she did answer it though. She said yes if they can pass the standards. But the standards have to reflect the reality of the job, and shouldn't be too hard or too easy. Try using your ears and the thing in between them
I served in a field unit from1980-88 when they were just starting to let women go into the field. I found that unless you had a group of women that could be self sustaining, I would get pulled away from my job/jobs to set up tents, dig latrines, slit trenches for the women PLUS I had to fulfill my own jobs as well. So they got to sit back and smoke and I got double the work, not a fan of that.
I had the same experience during my time in the Army from 88-96. We had 4 women in my boat unit (LCM-8) that if we had one of them on the boat crew (typically 4-5), that female had gender "seniority" to the one and only quiet and dry on the boat while off shift. That meaning, the other male crew members off shift would spend their downtime out in the weather. When we were off the boat and doing FTXs, the male soldiers would have to carry a portion of the females standard kit weight. We would have to dig their latrines, set up their tents in a female only area, and then post guard on their tent site. Every year, we all had to re-qualify for our PT tests and the female's expected passing number per event was always lower than the male counterparts were. Lastly, the female's monthly cycle would allow them to go on "light" duty. Long story short, women in the field with men were a hinderence (slowed down) the mission. There are plenty of military occupations out there that are better suited for female members. I didn't read a study to learn this, my experienced years in uniform taught me and my fellow male soldiers this same story.
@@AustrianPainter14 Keep that same energy when your hometown is being occupied by foreign soldiers because unit morale was destroyed by love trysts and jealousy.
My gauge on this issue is my father. He did 3 combat tours in Vietnam. He would tell me Miss, it is not a good idea, and then said this: we men will see a woman in trouble, especially an American woman, and you know what we would do? We would do what we could to save her. The reason being, she represents our wives, girlfriends, mothers, sisters, and any other female relative or friend. That would get so many killed. So, yeah, women could, but the cost is not in treasure, but blood.
@@AustrianPainter14 wtf?? lmao yknow u could move to the middle east where women & young girls r treated like dehumanized trash w zero rights. never gonna happen here buddy sorry to burst ur hopeful bubble, Tulsi is living proof of that
kyler9323 First of all no they don’t, birthrates are collapsing worldwide. The average vvoman doesn’t give birth. Second of all, giving birth is not unsafe while serving is. They need to be put in the draft or their vote revoked.. End of story
@kyler9323that makes no sense, stop putting them on a pedestal. If they want equal rights they better have equal responsibilities, they don’t get to acknowledge differences when it’s convenient for them.
I am a disabled VietNam veteran. There are probably five people in support of each combat troop. Women can fill these rolls. They don't have to be in combat to be effective.
I DON'T WAN'T TO CONTRODICT YOU SIR. ALL MY RESPECT TO YOU! BUT IN LIFE SURPRISING NECESSITIES MAKES US PEOPLE TO BE ABLE DOING THINGS, EVEN WE SURPRISE OURSELVES?? DID I DO YTHA - AT BASAS! #2 - I AGREE WITH YOU, UP TPO A POINT SIR, BUT HEY, THE OPPONENT / ENEMY SU - URE WILL BE SURPRISED? WHENA WOMAN WILL TRAKE CARE OF, SEVERAL TOUGHYS??! I'M SUR YOU DO KNOW, WHAT I MEAN??!!!
@@desbell7431lot of jobs in the military don’t have high physical fitness requirements. Checkout a navy ship sometime(not navy seals, just regular sailors). Women can do plenty of jobs just fine. Yeah, most women can be a navy seal but neither can most men. You can find jobs where 50% men can do it but less than 50% women can do it but so what. Just do everything merit based. Don’t worry about gender. Have early screenings so people can be filtered into jobs that contribute the most to society.
The PRT tests (physical readiness tests) in the military have lower standards for women. Women aren't required to do as many push ups, sit ups, and the times for running are longer for women. The physical standards for women are rock bottom in the military.
I'm a 70 y.o. woman daughter of a mustang admiral and I TOTALLY agree with you! There's a reason why women are known as "the weaker sex" - it's because we aren't as strong as men physically or emotionally. IMO women should never be in combat.
I have heard that women in combat can be a psychological hindrance for the men due to the protective nature of these men. A woman in danger in combat compared to a man in danger can cause a pause in quick judgment for the safety of the female that can cause far more casualties. Anyone else hear this?
So you're saying that women don't let their emotions cloud their judgment when in combat, but men do. I don't think a man too emotional to do his job should be in the military.
There’s a video of people trying out to be a firefighter. A good sized woman ran at and shouldered a door at least 3 times, and it didn’t budge. A regular guy, not unusually big, did the same thing. First time he busted through. If I was trapped inside and I needed someone to break the door down, I’d want him.
I served in an Army MEDEVAC unit when one of the first women was assigned as a flight medic. The first woman, after completing the qualification requirements to be a flight medic, had an emotional breakdown during her very first real life mission. The second woman assigned performed spectacularly! I believe that this dynamic also exists for males as well. Not everyone can do every job.
Great assessment. I deployed to Balad as basically a server administrator. I left the base within the last 3 weeks of US presence on the base and it was starting to get hairy with rocket and mortar attacks increasing. There were some of my fellow male comms teammates that requested to leave early because they were struggling to maintain their wits with the increased risk. Yet there were females that stayed and worked right along side me closing down the bases data center until the very end. Each person is different.
A flight medic doesn't run up and down hills you literally fly to where ya gotta go under the security of other attack helicopters or ISR and ground units for protection.
As a flight medic how many times did ya knock down doors? Lmfao 😂 but yes us combat killers would and do love seeing a pretty face right before we die. I thank you for your stellar service 🙏
He touched on it but they didn't go deeper...The effect on the morale of fighting units severely drops if a woman/women is killed/injured in combat. When another man dies it's sad, but mainly affects the soldier's friends...When a woman dies, it affects everybody. I don't think DEI belongs in the military :(
Not the best rationale, though your point is well taken. A man's life is far too precious to be treated so lightly as (we) have been particularly throughout the 20th century. Sensitivity training on this topic should be a requirement in military training. NO female in the military should EVER be in charge of any strategic decisions regarding the safety of men on the ground!
@@regionalunityproductions6204 I think it's hard-wired into us because women are more critical for survival of the tribe. Men are hardwired to protect women so even if she's a sister-in-arms and putting herself in just as much danger as the rest of the squad, it will always hit much harder because you'll feel like you failed in your job evolutionarily.
You chivalrous boomers are gonna have to comprise on something because this can’t go on like this. Why do they get to vote men into war without having to worry about being drafted?
@@regionalunityproductions6204 nah there are well documented accounts of women in past history leading men into battle & winning. it happens in a lot of countries surprisingly. I didn't believe until I researched it. makes sense tho. takes a very unique type of woman to do it
@@sagehawk12if 99.999% of women are simply unable to measure up to men in this area, it is totally reasonable to only allow men from the start. To say otherwise is to choose to be foolish.
I agree with most what Tulsi says. That being said, as a vet myself, ANYONE who wishes to be in an elite unit MUST pass a non adjusted qualification standard! Period!! We cannot afford to send our best and bravest into harms way with “people” who have not met basic requirements. We still live in a society where men protect women and to have a women who needs extra attention on a battlefield or participating in a covert operation is nothing more than a liability that can get folks killed! I know, I know, women think they can do anything a man can, so…..it shouldn’t be a problem to qualify for those role with the exact same standard that men face. This isn’t about some boardroom at a big company, this is war! As a vet myself I can tell you that it is ugly, relentless, remorseless and nothing at all like “ call of duty”, there is no do-over, you don’t respawn in the real world and those who step up and fill those special roles deserve the best of the best of everything especially people who are immensely qualified to fill those roles and have trained EXACTLY the same as the folks they go to operate with. If it comes down to 1 out of 100 women or even 1 out of 10,000 women then so be it! This isn’t a game anyone should be toying with for optics or political correctness. 🙏🏻🇺🇸💪🏼🇺🇸⚔️🇺🇸🔥who agrees with me?
Former combat soldier here; keep women out infantry, sof, etc. Any trigger pulling ground combat units period. If you can't carry or drag any of your team mates to safety if they get hit, then you are in the wrong place. Secondly, we don't have time for your time of the month in the field and what comes with that. Plenty of other mil jobs out there for women. The women that passed Ranger school is because standards were lowered, and there is documented proof of this.
No, just stop there needs to be a set standard and if women make the standard then they should be able to fight, Tulsi went into the military after 9/11 because she wanted to fight for her country, she should not be denied because she is a woman, but she shouldn't be accepted if she had to meet an easier standard compared to men, so I think if women and men can meet the standard then they should be allowed, this will probably lead to more men in combat but there will still be some women
@Evan-ni7hb Gabbard's MOS was not combat arms - she was 31b Military police. Later she served in Civil Affairs. If you read my comment and understood the military - Combat MOS: 11x Infantry, Ranger, Mortars etc - SEALs 5326 (NEC) -18x Green Berets...I'm not going through all the branches. Not only that, Gabbard was National Guard; however, she did deploy, but not in a combat role capacity.
@@Evan-ni7hb The "set standard" is whether or not you can withstand hand to hand combat with a 250 pound jihadist who want's nothing more than to die for Allah. Women have less bone and muscle density therefore the amount of caloric intake and testosterone supplements required to ensure they are hand to hand combat capable would make it logistically wasteful. The drawbacks far outweigh the benefit of "no hurt feelings because of equity".
Weapon systems universally utilized through the branches: m249 17lbs, 240b 27 lbs, 203 - 40mm grenades roughly .5 lbs and times that by 12 and over. Guys rock'n on a machine gun are priority targets. A woman will have difficulty employing these weapon systems in a dynamic combat environment.
@@Evan-ni7hb Tulsi served in a medical unit - not the front lines. Even if a woman meets the standards for men - they are not the same. The mind is not the same, the body is not the same, the reaction time is not the same, the initial "instinct" is not the same, the daily needs are not the same. Men's absolute lowest basic requirements allow them to do things that would kill a woman - no matter if she is just as fit. They are not the same.
1. Serving is a privilege, not a right; and jobs should be based on need, not opportunities. 2. Not all combat roles are equal. 3. If combat unit commanders can articulate a NEED for women in a certain role, so be it. 4. Thankful for the men and women who have served.
1. if it's a privilege then why do men have to sign draft cards? 2. Clueless comment 3. Another clueless comment 4. Only thankful for those *combat* veterans (people sign up for selfish reasons, duh) These new "right-wing Feminists" have started to infiltrate our movement
Ah, but you're misunderstanding the purpose of the US military. It's not a meritocratic task oriented entity. It's a jobs program. Both directly in that it will hire basically anyone with two feet and a heartbeat. And indirectly through the geographically (and thus politically) widespread defense industry.
It isn't just the standards however. It is the relationship between men and women, under stress, specifically combat, and how that interferes with unit effectiveness.
Used to be the same with mixing races or different backgrounds in a unit lol. Seems we can overcome that with.... training Or do you think people forget their countless hours of training because one of them has a womb??
That's a consideration, but I think it should be the woman's decision whether she wants to place herself in that situation, assuming she can meet the standard. No question, being captured is going to be way worse for a woman than a man. I think the biggest liability is the risk of relationships forming and that immediately changes the order of priority.
@@thadofalltrades No, it's not her decision. If combat effectiveness increases with mixed personnel then fine. The Marines did a study and that wasn't the case. Mixed personnel faired worse in combat scenarios.
@@thadofalltrades Disagree. Women should not be in combat. Women should be in support roles only, well away from the front lines. If a man is down, his fellow male soldiers have the strength to retrieve him. A women soldier does not. She is a liability.
@rlhicks1 that's a different argument though. That goes into standards. That's not what I was addressing. If you set standards and a woman meets them, she should be permitted to participate and it's her choice to do so. If the standard is no women in combat scenarios then the discussion is over.
My concern with women in the military, especially combat, is they are a distraction. sorry to others that will complain about it but it's reality when you have a team full of men they all get in order and know what their job is to do and they fulfill it even when the ones that don't do the job they are taken care of one way or another. you can't do that to a woman like you can to a man it's just ain't going to happen. Men know they have a responsibility to defend and protect women, and if you put them in harm's way, that's where the distraction comes in.
I've said this so many times. Much to the consternation of people in our modern culture. Honorable men will absolutely treat a woman differently than they will a man. It is innate and will probably never change. Add to that the specific hygiene needs of a woman and the sexual tension, and it's not a recipe for success. It may be workable, but it's not optimal. Optimal should be the goal. This ain't a social club we're talking about. It's life or death.
Sadly i dont think as many men have that instinct any more. The amount of men demanding women be drafted proves that those men anyway, have no instinct or desire to protect women. Respectable men will always want to protect women and children but we are losing our way as a society
Probably not many remember during the early push towards Baghdad two female soldiers got separated from their unit. Both tortured and assaulted, one soldier died the other survived but had all her leg & arm bones broken. The Iraqi doctor who sought out an American army unit to save the surviving soldier was given asylum in the U.S. for him and his family for his efforts.
I remember that story very well. The woman who was rescued was named Jessica Lynch, and the other was a Native American woman named Lori who left children behind. The press celebrated Lynch's rescue, but the story of the serious physical and emotional in juries she was left with didn't come out until later. What kind of animals "grape" dying women? That heroic Iraqi do ctor who risked his life to save Lynch is an exceptional human being.
I’m a woman & I don’t think women should be in combat or police officers. We aren’t strong enough to take on men & it puts the woman & her fellow officers in danger.🤷🏼♀️ Plus, that’s not even taking into account how a woman can be a distraction to men in a military base.
@@AustrianPainter14 if giving up my right to vote meant we kept the right people in govt, I’d gladly give it up. Most women tend to vote democrat bc they’re emotional & the left uses that against them.
It’s common sense. Women should not be in combat roles. We have different sports teams for a reason. If we’re willing to fight for separate sports teams in America because of performance on a court, we should fight for male only combat roles to keep our soldiers alive and to win the war.
Russia and China all have women in combat roles. There is definitely an overlap with male and female ability and performance. Let’s not make sweeping decisions and look at the qualities you need just like they say.
In about 1982, in Germany, we had a monthly Status report showing that 4% of my 3rd Infantry Division was pregnant. That 4% was not deployable. Is that anyway to run an army?
If it's not fair for women to play a game/ sports against a man....then how in the hell is it ok and effective for women to fight in combat against a man??? When it's life or death and not just game where you go back home in a couple hours. Explain that insanity to me. WTF
in terms of physicality you got a point thing is in combat you dont have to pit a womans physical strengt against a man all a woman needs to be able to do is shoot the other person. but in terms of beeing able to drag youre comrade away then ya you got a point.
This is a shit argument. Sports are for fun and entertainment. There are separate sexes in athletics because it would be wholly unfair to keep all women out of athletics except the ones who can compete with men. War is an entirely different thing. No average woman wants to be spec war. Separate male teams and female teams is the way to go in this regard. Let me ask you this… if we just relegate all women to the same physical allowances and don’t create strong fighting women with immense war fighting capabilities, what happens if we get invaded? All Americans will be warriors then.
I'm a former Combat Medic, all women are held to a massively lower standard for physical fitness. This is were the issues start. They should have to pass with the same physical standards as the males do for the same job. This is for both military, law enforcement and fire.
Women as support, but not in combat. The average woman could not pick up a wounded man and carry him in a combat situation. She has never had to do that......but I sill she is a great pick for the job she has been selected for.
You'd be surprised what humans can do when the adrenaline is flowing. There are many reported instances of women lifting cars when a loved one is trapped underneath. Adrenaline is a hell of a thing.
@@Crimsonedge1 It's true that adrenaline helps with physical strength, but those reports are not the same as women bicep curling 1000 pounds; instead, it's usually just a fraction of the weight of the vehicle, which is still impressive, but not the weight of the whole car. Additionally, the muscles which are activated to 100% usage are very likely to be severely damaged, and the "strength boost" does not last nearly long enough for combat situations. Combat is not about a single 5 second window of increased strength and stamina, rather, combat is about continuously increasing requirements for high level of mental, emotional, and physical strength and stamina.
Anybody can insult me as much as they want. Women do not belong on the front line. They should be able to undergo training to protect themselves but is unconcionable to put women front line . I will die on this hill.
I think the biggest detriment to women in combat is not the physical or mental standards, but the fact that putting a woman into a team of men can significantly change the group dynamic in a way that can decrease the efficacy of the group.
I’m a vet, I’m also a woman, I don’t believe 99% of the women that I was with would not want to be on the front lines. I don’t think we were physically able to do that job. But, if a woman could pass the same PT scores as men, but not lowered for women scores, then I say yes. But the standards for women are always lower for females..
I was in Iraq. I remember our company decided to make all the women do paperwork jobs. While all the guys did convoy security, for various reasons our platoon got down to 11 people (similar numbers in other platoons), so we ended being very overworked. So why not have the females go out? I even asked the women, and every single one said they wouldn't mind going out, but they never let them. So I got worked like a dog, when I didn't need too.
You can't risk people's lives just to be politically correct. All studies have shown that all-male teams always outperform mixed teams. It's a no brainer. Even the strongest woman is way weaker than the average guy. Testosterone is a controlled substance for a reason. Play to women's strengths though! There are plenty of jobs at which women excel like air traffic controller or radio operator.
@@roadbone1941 Because after about an hour outside the wire women are complaining and whining. You are all nothing but an annoyance and a hinderance and do not belong next to Infantryman.
Understand completely and thank you for your service. If I had a daughter I could never let her join the military especially being in combat. The majority of countries we would be going against have only men in their military so what if the women were captured? I don't think this is fair for women and is just an agenda.
38 years as a soldier, sailor and professional firefighter, I have seen some things. I have seen women who couldn't rack a round into the M2 even though they were the gunner. I have seen the fire department lower physical standards so women could pass, lowering most of the upper body strength tasks and I have seen hanky panky on Navy ships because 20 somethings couldn't wait until the next port visit. It's a mess.
I know men who cannot load a round,cannot meet the physical. And culturally things need to be changed back to when the intellectual standard was not at the level of caveman,personal gratification of physical need. In this time of advanced times ,you would think we would be on a more elevated intellectual level. But ,no,the young are being indoctrinated to girls are just a piece of meat for sex,and girls are not smart and should have sex just for fun with 20 different boys. There is the problem of boys and girls cannot be together without sex going on. No intelligence required. Need to get back to propriety of actions,modesty,respect,self respect and more. It is a whole better level of humanity.
"I have seen women who couldn't rack a round into the M2 even though they were the gunner." It's okay, they probably weren't going to see an actual firefight, right? ...right?
if a man and women are fighting side by side and the woman gets shot or injured, the man can carry them out oif the line of fire to safety.... A woman COULD NOT pick up a 220lb man and carry them to safety... maybe drag them out of the line of fire, but you would end up with 2 dead soldiers... they are NOT physically capable.. period
I am female and was an Army medic and agree. Job assignments and training and expectations need to be realistic. I would have had to drag a wounded soldier out, no way I could carry one.
My dad was a WW 2 airman in the 8th Air Force, shot down over Germany and captured. 16 months in. POW camp transformed a healthy 170 pound man into a 98 pound skeleton on the verge of death when liberated. He and I had many detailed discussions about his time in captivity and there were many horrors that he was the victim of. He was an extraordinary man who lived with his PTSD the best he could. He was an excellent provider to me and my siblings and set an example of honesty, hard work and patriotism. But one can now see how troubled he was from his wartime experience. I do not believe it is wise to put any woman in this possible environment due to the obvious additional physical risks from potential enemy sexual predators. I beg our military to not put our treasured women, the possible mothers of our people, in this kind of harms way. No way is this a good idea. I guarantee my father would be against the notion of women in front line combat because of this.
Yes and here is a very important issue that most have missed. A woman's first responsibility in society is to keep the population up which is a tough and time consuming role. In all out war in which there would be no civilians a savvy commander would make women the prime target; Ultimately no female soldiers, then no male soldiers, anywhere. The war is over.
My concern is that people think this level of depravity and soulless behavior is something the modern world wouldn't see like "the old days". There are two guarantees in every war since the very first one in human history all the way to the last: 1) War brings out the absolute worst in humanity and 2) The monsters created in war were really not meant to be there and are only there at the behest of the rich and powerful - the true monsters of our world. We think war is a civilized necessity. I only see it as a direct correlation to wealth and power. Your father was an American hero who sacrificed much for this country. I hope he is well in the afterlife, or whatever version of that he believed in.
Women who are in the military chose to be there. No one is forcing Women or men to join. In the case of a war, we need as many people as we can get to fight, man or woman. Use common sense.
I was glad that Jordan brought up the issue of women as potential POWs. I think whether they choose to face that eventuality men need to say no. We have lost the moral principle of men's responsibility to protect women. When men do not accept that responsibility we are lost as a nation and as a human race.
What about the Kurdish YPJ ? ? ? All women, and they kicked ISIL's ass ! IF, or when, the SHTF, women DO need to be prepared and ABLE to step up, as Russian women did during WW2 ? Absolutely NO lowering of standards, but women HAVE to regain that ability. The women of SOE in WW2 fought JUST as bravely as any "Man"
@@GilbertdeClare0704agreed. What we have is a severe culture issue of women not being treated with the same pressure of responsibility as men. Moreover we have a fitness issue across the country. As a female veteran I hated the segregated PT standards and often did better than some of my male colleagues without trying very hard. It comes down to discipline and your mental toughness. What makes men and women extraordinary is what they are willing to put themselves thru and endure. We need a warrior culture and I believe that would reduce the amount of sexual assaults for both men and women and the idea of personal responsibility that you carry to be a productive citizen would be very healthy and beneficial for society. Everyone needs to carry their weight.
I personally would fight harder knowing I had women in my unit that needed me. I would venture this would be true for many men that feel protective of women. Fighting harder is something that should also be considered. There’s another aspect to the morality question. Is it moral to deny someone the opportunity to do something they want to do just because they were born a female? I hear you on their views of traditional morality concerning women, but it’s not our place to tell them what they can and can’t do as long as they meet the performance standard.
That moral responsibilty is propaganda. Only the women in a man's life that help him deserve that privelege. Everyone else is owed an equal amount of respect and protection that is significantly less than what is owed to your immediate family. A random woman is no more valuable to a man than another man.
@@the1joyster I SO, SO, SO agree with you my friend ! DEFINITELY ! It is so TOTALLY that RETURN of that Warrior Culture that is desperately needed ! I read in a Post war report that the Female Agents of SOE who were captured and tortured, on average, resisted torture BETTER than men, and hardly EVER betrayed their fellow soldiers or civilians helping them. My Ex was better at shooting kneeling, than I was, yet prone or standing, I was better. Driving a Russian T55 or Ferret Scout Car and SHE was the better driver of both. She also got her Hanggliding EP1 and EP2 faster than I did, yet the reverse with Skydiving. I have seen it in my work as a Therapist that schools come down MUCH harder on GIRLS getting aggressive than boys, which TEACHES them to turn it all inwards. LEGITIMISING that healthy assertion/aggression in our culture where all kids LEARN not to fear it but to CONTROL it, and then NO reduction in standard whatsoever, creates the BEST person for the job. It is the TASK that matters, not whether one has a d*ck between one's legs
The Marine Corps ran a 9 month study with male only and sex mixed units. The male only units blew the sex mixed units in ALL metrics. All of them. Our PMI’s in boot camp lied to us about women being better marksmen, and I learned it from this study. Women also get injured more often just from wear and tear. Tulsi is spouting feminist policy. She’s simply wrong. Even if you, without lowering the standards (ALWAYS happens), get women who can meet the standards, they will not last. They’ll start falling apart and end with lifelong health issues just from trying to keep up. There’s nothing to gain from “women in combat” except the lowering of male morale and or interest in joining. If you want more bodies for the military, making it easier and pussifying it will have the opposite effect as young men looking for a challenge will turn away. Get this garbage out of the military!
I don’t think she is saying that women need to be in combat units. I think she is saying that standards should not be changed to include or exclude anyone. There needs to be a set standard and leave it at that. The USMC refused to change their standards for IOC and look how that has went. I believe, at my time of retirement, 2 female officers made it through that course. We should have one set of standards across the board, including physical fitness. You either make the standard or you don’t. That will weed out the ones that can’t hack it. I do not think women should be in any MOS that takes them hammer the frontline.
I've heard from women that keeping up at such a high standard in harsh conditions led them to be infertile and now that they want kids they can't. There should at least be a very informative sign off.
I was a British soldier and when a group of men embark on a dangerous task there is a magic that happens between them. I believe it is a primordial instinct and women do not have this. The presence of women short circuits this bonding. Women are not lesser but different.
I asked my daughter this question about women serving on the front lines. She said she would go if ordered to go. She served four years in the NAVY, although she was an expert marksman she is only 5-2. Women do not belong on the front lines, even if they are capable.
@@genecoppedge5972 the navy is not the shooters. They don’t go to the range. There is nothing for them to shoot on the high seas.The marines have always been the fighting force for the navy and protected the ships. The navy is our transporter.😂
@ Wow you’re so far off the point they were making. Come on try and focus on the subject matter here. It’s not a question about the branch of military the question was, “should women be on the front lines?” You sound Kamala, “not a thing is coming mind”
@ You have no idea what you’re talking about. So the Navy spend all their time on the high seas? You’re hilarious. Another one that sounds like Kamala, “not a thing is coming to mind” are you on meds that makes your mind wonder aimlessly? Even stupid dialogue is protected by the first amendment, so don’t worry your dumb speech is protected 😂
I think that's definitely true in most cases. Of course there are always exceptions though. But we need to hold them to the same level of scrutiny we do with men.
@morgans7785, I think what you said is coming from not realizing that no two women are exactly the same. You seem to think that all women are dainty and fragile. Did you know that some countries have women that fight in combat? I think Israel is a good example.
If a woman can meet the same fitness standards required as men then she should be allowed. No one is making you fight. Let the women who fit the same qualifications as men be in combat.
This is such an incomplete conversation. What about administering discipline? Morale? Sexual temptation and misconduct? “Can you carry enough weight?” Is such a superficial benchmark Women and men are very different things
I think she's right; everyone needs to achieve the same standard. Women fought in the Civil War disguised as men and did a good job of it. The problem comes when the standards are changed "to allow more women to take the job," which has been the case in the US military for decades.
It also promotes disharmony when your primary groups measure is being undermined inorder to "promote" numbers, especially when this scoring also affects your chances of promotion.
THIS!! 100%. I recently retired from the Marine Corps and this is a very holistic conversation that gets at what the military has done - identify occupational specialty standards and uphold them, so we have a true meritocracy and have the best and most fully qualified in all occupations, from all demographics.
Yes, you nailed it, "occupational specialty standards". A woman fighter pilot who downed a drone was just awarded the first ever air combat medal to a female. She met that standard, which is quite different than an infantry standard. Just common sense.
I agree with TG and if a person meets the standard they should be able to do that job, but DO NOT lower the standard for anyone. It takes a special person to enlist in the military, another kind of special to want to enlist in infantry, and then it gets even more special for any sort of special forces. The standard should weed out the weak, period.
if a woman can pick up and carry a 220lb man out of the line of fire, so be it, but unless it is the late Joanie Laurie (Chyna from WWE) people will die
Women can't do the job, that's why the standard is there. And women can't reach the standard, that's why they were lowered. Women do not deserve to be in combat positions.
Her perspective is quite reasonable but there are additional reasons to select men that simply don't have to be measured when you select only men such as bone density. The reality is that women are simply far more expensive to train and deploy for jobs such as infantry because they spend so much time injured.
@@stochastic42 I'm not an expert of which sex is more expensive to train or deploy. If a woman is integrated that means she is imbedded with men, she doesn't get her own berthing area or head area (bathroom). There should not be a special berthing area based off gender. She doesn't get special time off because she gets her period, she doesn't get to go back to the rear and shower because she's been bleeding for 7 days and smells bad...That is a part of being an infantryman. If a woman wants to be integrated in an infantry unit or in a predominantly male unit, she is lodged with that unit, period. The unit deploys together, they are out in the field for as long as the the op calls. Do I agree with this completely? Not at all! But this is what anyone that wants this needs to know and based off my experience in the military this is a BAD idea...But if a woman or man wants to do this and can meet the standard, then they should have the exact opportunity regardless of sex as long as they meet or exceed the standard. I think all weak people should be weeded out for tough jobs. . Based off my time in the Marine Corps and deploying and then having children while active duty; women and men deploying together in combat zones pose many obstacles and I went from totally for this in the early 2000's to the exact opposite in 2010.... like i said, I have my personal opinions based off my experiences but as long as the standard DOES NOT change and a woman can meet it, I think women shouldn't be DQ'd for it simply because they are a female.
I like Tulsi, but women should not be in combat, end of story. They can help in many valuable roles, but we do not need to put women in harms way, that's a societal mindset.
I wish more people had your perspective. Sometimes what happens is that women hear that the only valuable jobs are on the front line and tend to go for those specific roles out of a genuine desire to be as useful as possible. If other roles weren’t looked down on so frequently I think we’d see a shift in that.
@@Reflectionmaterial YES, YES IT DOES I say this based on 25 yrs in Special Forces, 10 yrs in law enforcement, 5 yrs in EMS, 50 yrs as a martial arts instructor. YES, YES IT DOES. YOU ALL SEEM TO MISS THE POINT. GET PAST THE DAM SOCIAL EXPERIMENT, PAST HE WOKE, PAST THE STUPIDITY
That is the only answer: The best PERSON for the job. In the military, law enforcement, fire fighters EVERY member will have to carry a collegue or victim from danger one day and a 140 pound male because of his PHYSIOLOGY will be able to do that better than a 140 lbs female. Because WE ARE BUILT DIFFERENTLY.
I've never served but two quick stories. My dad was in the 11th airborne in the early 50's. At the time the army was going through desegregation. He served with black troopers. His observation was that while they might have not been liked by everyone they were respected by everyone. Training and selection were tough. If you made it you you made it. Fifty some years ago I took an Outward Bound course. A tiny bit like paying to go through basic training but you went home after 23 days. Crews consisted of 12 to 13 students and two instructors. Crews could be all male, all female or mixed. This was the 70'sand women's lib was coming on strong. I asked instructors how this all worked out. Their take was that mixed crews OVERALL did well and they preferred mixed crews. All male crews tended to be very macho and didn't listen well. That was an issue on ropes courses, climbing, rappelling and whitewater canoeing. The potential for serious injury was there. All women crews had teamwork issues, were not as mentally and physically resilient and had a lot of tears. Mixed crews tended to balance out strengths and weaknesses. THIS WAS NOT combat.
Along with having the mental and physical requirements for the job, you have to look at the overall effectiveness and casualty rates of mixed sex units vs all male units, and even all female units. Then follow the data. Mothers shouldn't have to grieve their lost children for social engineering.
Obviously all male units will perform the best.. if the women have a lower physical performance standard than the men they end up becoming a hindrance to the team making it a less effective unit as they wont be able to carry their own weight.. in frontline combat at least
Why do people keep assuming the best option is to have mixed units? That is clearly not the right call. All male units and all female units. That is absolutely obvious to me.
In combat, it's not a courtessy rumba?? ! It's discipline - quick witt / thinking! And a whole lot of, common sense! HHMMM?WHAT? WHAT?! WHATS? - THAT PATRIOT'S . . OH - O YES, LIKE Lt. Col. GABBARD !!🗽
@@TolgaAtamtuerk If I was in combat with someone who looked like Tulsi next to me, Yes I and many other Men would be distracted...even if it's for a second...that's when someone could get killed
I love the line of questioning from Jordan...especially the last one...straight to the point...Tulsa struggled to answer the last one but she did give a good answer
Perhaps that's gilding the lily. Some women are very aggressive and need a healthy outlet; have you seen roller derby or women's rugby? I think the bigger issue is the devaluation of motherhood by women.
In my neighbourhood recently there was a wood chopping carnival, women were competing against the men. The stark contrast between women and men in the competition was very, very evident. The women were struggling to cut through the first half of the log when the men had finished cutting right through their logs, not only that they had to rest in between chopping strokes on their second half of the logs. A bloke in his seventies was competing against the women and he still finished way ahead of them. The ladies were all in their twenties and large but they didn’t have the physical stamina and strength as the men
Chopping wood for a one time carnival is very different than training for combat. Women and men who are in the military train for it, the average man or woman will not have the same abilities as a woman or a man in the military. You are far too old to be that ignorant.
Thankfully we are not in the early Bronze Age and we have much more developed tools. Now if in theory, your neighborhood was in the path of an invasion, and you were trying to set up defenses, wouldn’t you want everyone able to lift a chainsaw or a handsaw cutting wood? Modern warfare is not a strength contest between individual soldiers. One of the greatest combat advantages of both the the Soviet Union and the UK in WW2 is that they had trained both women and older men in many small towns to hold off the Germans. This was the only method that allowed them to slow and then stop the German takeover of Europe. In the case of the UK, the Battle of Britain was fought mainly by pilots and anti aircraft gunners, and that was the only role where women participated in the fighting. In the Soviet Union women were gunners, snipers and pilots, all roles that depend more on skill and ability to manage the machines than on brute strength.
@ the women who were in the wood chopping carnival actually were members of a wood chopping group and trained for the events. The issue was the difference in strength and endurance between the men and women, there were a couple of blokes who were slim but wiry that started after the ladies as it was a time based race. The bloke who started last finished before everyone else did as he literally blitzed the log in half. Training is in how you train , it’s the attitude. I know women who are trained martial arts fighters and can kick most men’s arses in a fight including mine , but some of them told me that when it comes to fighting a man who is a trained fighter they would lose . For the men are just physically stronger then they are. As for myself I’m not trained in any form of martial arts but have beaten blokes bigger than me in fights and I am quite skinny, the difference was I had strength from working very physical jobs since I was a kid. Not only that I had the mental strength to ignore the pain and fight like an animal when I needed to . Women are very capable in a lot of ways , but physically compared to men , no. Combat isn’t just about physical strength it’s also mental strength, for when you’re fighting for your life , you have to do what it takes to survive. One can shoot a rifle and a gun at someone from a distance and there are lots women who are excellent shooters, there are women who are capable pilots and sailors. But when it comes down to the reality of close quarter combat and hand to hand fighting that’s where reality hits and a lot of women will lose as will a lot of men.
@@gabrielamora6265 very true and I have worked on farms and knew women who were strong and capable of doing the heavy lifting and hard work. There were women flying bombers and fighters in WW2 , particularly in the Soviet Union and there were female snipers as well. Women have fought for centuries that’s a fact , and there are women who are trained in martial arts that can kick my arse in a fight . The issue is the lowering of the physical standards in training in order to get women into the military is just plain stupid and dangerous. Warfare isn’t just about brute strength and you are right there , it’s also psychological, outsmarting the enemy in battle. The harsh reality is that on the whole women aren’t physically stronger than men, but then again men don’t give birth which is something that thankfully we cannot do. As a friend of mine told me, she said that if you have never given birth to a baby then you don’t know what pain is, which makes it more incredible that women want to have another baby after the first one . But in the nitty gritty, dirty reality of a life and death battle of hand to hand combat, if the women had not been trained to a high standard but with lowered expectations then they are dead. The same goes for men, combat doesn’t care about equality or climate change and when you hear the bullets flying past you , you hit the ground hoping that you don’t get hit . Then someone starts throwing mortar rounds into the mix , hmm that made things just a tad more interesting for us
Stop hating on Nature. Changing enlistment standards due to dangerously low enlistment is different than changing the underlined premise of protection built within our biological coding (DNA). I don't think women shouldn't be allowed to enlist but, the pool of women vs. men meeting physical and mental standards will be much smaller. Standards for combat should be across the board, any variation would directly put lives at risk. @@Kroh13
@@Kroh13 Well, they are, the problem is right now in most physical jobs we have 1 standard for men and a different altogether for women that has much lower requirements, which is ridiculous.
The feeling when she started answering with level headed intelligence that thought outside the false dichotomy, instead of screeching feelings-before-reality tribal indignation, felt like getting into a hot bath. I hadn't heard of her a week ago but I have great respect for this woman.
It's not about "standards" I met the standard But when I was on patrol as a medic in Afghanistan I was shit scared ALL THE TIME That we'd get into the shit and I wouldn't be fast enough...or strong enough...or good enough Standards are for training Just good enough ain't good enough when lives are on the line I'm grateful I never had to pass that test
Even if a combat service woman accepts and understands the horrific consequences of falling into some of our barbaric enemies hands, they are not able to mitigate the emotional impact on that woman’s fellow male soldiers. Being normal men who have developed some relationship with the women in the unit, will feel a greater obligation upon themselves to defend or offset what may happen to the woman. It’s genetics.
What effects a woman's physical, mental, and emotional stability also effects her potential children. So, it's not just a matter of what risks she's willing to take for herself at the time. Women are needed to be nurturing and stable as mothers for the sake of the new generations.
@@ELFR1205 They have other ways of developing talents, but they may also adopt or foster children and serve in other nurturing ways. Some cultures have less reluctance toward woman going to war with men, but it's better for society for women not to join the military, whenever possible. It should be discouraged.
What about cases like the Soviet front in WW2 where a lot of the women who joined did so because their husbands, parents and/or children were killed by the Germans?
The standards should NEVER be reduced. NEVER.
AMEN! Anything that reduces or distracts from the primary objective is counter productive. The STANDARD is the STANDARD.
100% agree!
Absolutist positions are rarely sensible when you think about it. Just as an example, if you can lower the standard by 10% but double recruitment, that's probably the better move. The US military is struggling BADLY with recruitment. You fight with the army you have, not the one you wish you had.
Lol the standards are always reduced because a warm body is better than no body. If you ask soldiers from previous generations, it was a lot harder in the past than now training wise solely because men got weaker and they need positions filled.
Amen, Standards should be raised. Every truck driver, clerk , mechanic should be able to to jump into the roll of Infantry, War isn't fair it may decide that for us..
I think she is saying tighten the standards not focus on gender
That would weed out many. Common sense thinking.👍
@MundaneThingsBackwardsYes, but now they're mutilating man, turning them into " Women" so they can perform well!😂😂
It's far more complicated. Can a female, even if she were to make it through selection, be able to sustain? Does this increase lethality and overall effectiveness? According to the most comprehensive study conducted by the Marines, the answer is no on all accounts.
What’s great about this, is it forces the left to admit that women and men perform differently.
Which is the right answer. A lot of male PTSD sufferers would probably have been disqualified from serving in combat if properly screened in advance. Thing is, in a war big enough to require conscription, you can't always be picky enough to take only the ones - male or female - that are 100 percent cut out for it.
I am a retired Paramedic with 17+ years in EMS. I am retired because the standard for women physically was less than what was required for men. I had to do all of the heavy work. Anything that took physical power or effort was mine to do. I injured both of my shoulders with this female partner. I was the first she took out, and after the third person injured by her inability to perform, she was moved out of the field work. Having a physically capable woman can be helpful, but without that ability to carry the weight of the tasks to be delivered, someone always gets hurt.
This stupidity has to stop.
The hidden cost. Plus there is the natural tendency to protect women - which is a positive trait. We know from resistance fighters, women are very valuable, but for normal military, there are so many excellent other roles.
I made it 25 years as a Paramedic only because I was promoted to a field supervisor position and off the truck. I had several female partners over the years. Most were knowledgeable Paramedics and EMT's and probably smarter than me. But as you obviously know, you can't lift a 400 pound patient with your big brain. I do remember one girl who would fight you if you tried to do her job but for the most part they would step back and expect me and the 1st responders to do the heavy lifting. Ive had one shoulder surgery and the other hurts me every day. I know exactly what you're saying.
It’s not only th😂at. It was that originally it was a male oriented profession. Then they brought in laws that declared it was sexist to have more men than women. However after these laws were implemented, in areas where there were more women than men that was fine.
We need to stop subsidizing women
Same in my job. They're paid the same but expect you to take over for the labor and hard work because you're a man. "I want the easy part of the job." It happens so much.
Woman here. My daughter is serving currently in the Air Force ( C&C officer) and I can't be more proud. yet putting women in infantry units doesn't make sense. They simply lack the physical criteria!
Exactly, she shouldn't be in the military. When I turned 18, I had to register for the draft, but women didn't have to. Why is that?
She’s not actually serving. She’ll never have to fly a plane or pull a trigger
@@AustrianPainter14 What did you do in the military? I was an infantry Marine, albeit for a short time due to an injury causing medical separation.
The tooth-to-tail ratio of our military is a huge part of the reason for our capabilities. POGs are vital to the success of the warfighters.
Lower the standards. Lower the outcome. Everyone loses.
"The ends justify the means." And damn the consequences.
I guess you will be enlisting then?
@@spdbggy9675 Yes ,you are so right. Go to Africa and see diff BETWEEN ABLE SOLDIER AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION SOLDIER!!!!!
@@AustrianPainter14 Did my 20! With four combat tours. Got tired of the bureaucracy. It was harder to kick a bad Soldier out than to keep a good Soldier in. It took almost a whole year to process out a Soldier who couldn't pass a PT test.
spdbggy9675
Wasn’t my question. I didn’t ask you about your history. I asked you if you will be filling the ranks. In case you didn’t notice there is a huge shortfall.
As a retired Special Forces Soldier I believe the FIRST THING that has to change is get rid of seperate Male and Female physical fitness standards! The enemy will not discriminate. Anyone who thinks a 120-140lb woman will be able to defeat a 210-230lb man is mistaken. How is that woman going to carry a 220lb man out of the kill zone? Why is there no women in the NFL? Women can not do everything a man can do the same as a man can't do everything a woman can, they can complement each others strengths and minimize their limitations. America must employ and use women better than just allowing them in every MOS. Yes, I believe women can be effective in SOME Special Forces missions but NOT on a 12 man Operational Detachment Alpha.
Well put.....women and men are not "equal"; they are "complimentary" by nature (yin / yang). Having exclusionary requirements for combat positions is simple common sense...which is what we need to get back to in this country.
I say they just let them have steroids if they want them so they can lift more and pass selection, screw it, it's war
Sounds good. I'm a female military vet, and think that makes sense.
You are right brother. 18A
It’s just part of the psyop dude
Nobody with a brain in their head thinks women can contend with men
Why yall are so easily manipulated is the real question
As a former army drill instructor I noticed some key differences between the men and women coming into the system beyond the differing physicality. The men tended to be younger (18-19) and were more interested in getting to shoot their weapons and slept through lectures and the women were 3 years older and more cerebral, took notes and consequently did better on the written tests. Since a lot of a passing score was based on written tests they appeared to be equally qualified.
Men were quicker to form effective teams and specialize on tasks such as barracks maintenance. Men had no problem with the idea of a battle buddy who would have your back even if you hated each other's guts most of the time. The women had difficulty with the concept of teams and tended to try to form clicks with friends in other squads or platoons and ignore their assigned buddy. With the guys by the second week the barracks were looking perfect most of the time. The women's barracks looked substandard most of the time and even in the last week they'd be arguing about whose turn it was to perform a particular task.
On another note when my daughter-in law was deployed to Afghanistan with the 82nd we sent a Care Package so they could prepare a meal that wasn't typical. She sent us a picture of her section eating the meal and I noticed that her squad was entirely women and the other squad was all men. When I inquired why the difference she told me that the women stayed inside the fire base and the men performed missions outside the wire. Not sure how widespread this practice was, but it certainly was not equitable.
Comments on the comments: Not every individual involved in basic training is/was an Sgt E-5 or higher. When I was going through basic training in 1970 there were a large number of draftee E-4's who were combat veterans spending their last six months in service passing on survival skills. I used Drill Instructor not as a title but as how I saw my role. Which was to teach them how to stay alive.
To clarify I was a PSG for six years with a infantry platoon before being a SFC Senior Drill Sgt.
My observations may be dated and are based on my experience as a Senior Drill Sgt. in the late 80's when we were transitioning to an all volunteer force.
I had all male cycles, all females cycles, and coed cycles (separate platoons but both genders in the company).
Yes in the 80's there were still written tests. The Task, Condition, and Standard--Go/No Go was being implemented.
And, yes I used to think I was billy bad-ass, even did the Ranger thing. Now I'm just and old man who thought my life observations might shed a light on a difference between men and women beyond relative body strength. My wife has sisters, we have daughters and granddaughters. I have watched them interact act as they grew up and matured. Not that much has changed through the years on how they interact.
On a personal note. I think everybody regardless of MOS should be trained to fight. You don't need to be able to ruck for 30 days but you do need to be able to carry a combat load and be functional for at least 12 hours minimum. I am basing the time on requirement on the probability that a QRF could relieve a rear echelon unit that is not normally engaged in combat but was attacked by the enemy while in movement or in a base area. The idea of "should we assign women to combat" is really subsumed by the fact that many women are going to be exposed to combat merely because they are in the military not because they signed up for a combat role. The moral dilemma is, knowing this, do we allow women in the military at all. And if the answer is yes how do we prepare them to function and survive.
Your first segment is interesting to hear the difference in how they interact. I'd always imagined women would be better at teams but apparently not. And it's ironic and funny that they don't keep the barracks clean.
I had a female drill instructor tell me the EXACT same thing about women's inability to bond, form a team, admit another woman is better at something than she is and ask for help, etc., compared to the men. She actually told me she hated having female flights. (AF TI)
I can imagine that the men who go outside the wire feel more comfortable with another man watching their back than a woman. I have no military experience, but I am 62 years old and have been married for close to 40 years, with two grown daughters. Nothing you tell me about women is surprising at all. Men and women have entirely different evolutionary histories, so it should not surprise us that we think differently. Men have had to deal with armed combat for hundreds of thousands of years, women have not. We should expect men to have, generally speaking, the mental wherewithal to deal with combat and forming teams necessary to that task in ways that women find difficult.
It never is equitable - affirmative action ALWAYS means NOT THE BEST PERSON FOR THE JOB.
Everyone should be allowed to apply for all positions.
@@maluminse1 Women are more concerned about who's turn it is than keeping the place clean. Guys will just keep the place clean, and if they think someone is shirking, that person will get punished by the others in some imaginative way...and if the punished man tells the drill instructor, the punishment will be even worse [by his team].
She's rockin Rogue's hairstyle from x-men
If you can not carry your mate off the front line you should not be there
We should not send our military into harms way. I am more concerned that ALL people should defend their family and homes ie have access and know how to use guns.
THIS was a prime concern, and was trained during our MOB on the way to Iraq in 2009. Combat Aviation, Attack Recon Apache chopper battalions. No 130lb woman wearing 70 lbs of armor and still more in weapons and ammo, in 120 degree F heat is going to drag a 240 lb, 6 foot 4 inch man dressed the same way anywhere. Period. She will simply become a second casualty thereby endangering further troops and the mission.
That part!
@@randybisbee848 Me, being a 150 lb, 5 foot 6 inch man would be hard pressed to carry that man anywhere. And I wouldn't be able to drag him far.
You might want to consider keeping each unit to similar sized humans.
@@randybisbee848I never have been or ever will be in good enough shape to do that, and I’m a man.
Men act differently when women are present.
💯
War is a guy thing! It would be very hard to call a woman a buddy in a field of combat, and the majority of woman’s DNA is quite emotional and not sure if they wouldn’t be totally up to a front line combat zone in attack mode! Radio operator, maybe!
Then just have all male teams and all female teams and have them operate separately.
So do women when men are around.
@@sidneybuckaloo I think that would just be a waste of money and lives
I love the precision and careful choice of words by both Peterson and Gabbard. Brilliant.
Couldnt have said it better myself. Very well spoken they are. Straight to the point.
Matthew 5:37 - "But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil."
It was not a direct answer but a careful choice of words alluding to the obvious. I would have more respect if they would just say "no, women do not meet the standard for combat positions." But it goes beyond qualification as well. Combat is not suited for the nurturing nature of women, and nor should women be exposed to the violent carnage of battle let alone participating in it, in a civil society. Brilliant semantics, not a firm stance.
When you listening her every time bragging on how she served in the military you would think she was a female Rambo while in reality she was an admin in a medical unit. Of course now that she scored a job flipping on all of her position she can pander to the electorate that she's been sucking up in the past year or so
Too careful, if you are too careful in Jordan's own words you'll never progress through the thought process, you need to be able to make mistakes in language if you are to work through anything conceptual
@@joeschmoe6720 this man came with facts and a bible
Also, the IDF tried putting females in front line combat and they stopped. The men's moral plummeted and the women struggled due to being weaker physically.
Indeed and anyone that has gone through it knows this but yet these boneheads keep on with their social experiment as if its a game..Its not.
They have tanker teams
Mmmmmmm you are wrong. Historically, women have fought on the frontlines, with success.
@victorwilliams1304 Yea okkk...You have no clue what youre talking about. WE are talking about the spearhead knucklehead, and no tbey havent. Sit down
@victorwilliams1304 Its people like you that have chastised women due to your ignor ance.
Two things; First, I have heard from German veterans and read about the women in the Soviet Army who were matched against the German Wermacht. The policy of the Germans was to immediately liquidate female prisoners. And exactly the same for female partisan fighters as well. No time was alotted for sexual assaults. Interrogation was carried out, sometimes, and then a pistol shot to the back of the head. Period. Second, I was infantry in Vietnam. 1st Brigade, 101st Airborne Division Volunteered to go back twice more. I have never personally served around a woman who could do my job in a rifle company, in battalion Recon platoon or later, in the 1st Brigade LRRP platoon. When the leader says "pick up the gun" the M240 machine gun weighs about 27 pounds and the ammo is seven pounds per hundred rounds. Basic load was five hundred rounds. "You do what you gotta do". That includes putting a 180 pound casualty on a hovering med-evac. If you can't do your part, you shouldn't be there. WAR IS NOT A SOCIAL STATEMENT.
@@tomgoodwin9161 the machine gun is assigned to a squad. The assignments are divided up in the squad the ammo is carried by another,etc.There are men that cannot do it. You heard counts of Germans in a particular area,not all the same. You know that. Women are generally a better shot,you might want that at your back. Better than a guy who can’t hit the side of a barn?
@@Cab520 That there are men that can't carry ammo is not evidence that women can - especially for long periods in adverse conditions.
If a woman is 'generally a better shot' that does not mean that would hold up under combat conditions.
Systems correct themselves. If we don't right the ship we will get our ass handed to us.
@@Cab520 I agree, the Russians had great female snipers, but they might have been segregated into their own units. (I had an infantry MOS, but I admit I was a lousy shot)
tomgodwin Thanks for your service. I absolutely agree, it's all about standards, not gender. Libs make everything about race, gender, or sexual orientation.
The thing with Soviet women in WW2 lis that entire villages were being shot to death by the SS, and so women petitioned the government for the right to be in combat positions because they saw going down fighting as a better alternative than just getting killed with no way to defend themselves. Whether or not or you agree with the politics of the Soviets, they were fighting the Nazis, who wanted to exterminate them. Women who had previous training in flying or sharpshooting proved to be very combat effective in women only units or in mixed units. The Germans particularly hated them and kept track of their kills. Women also “manned” artillery in anti aircraft units and were very effective. The German approach to Stalingrad was held back for days primarily by young women who had just graduated high school and a single male commanding officer. What women are not good at is being plain infantry soldiers, ie hand to hand combat, carrying gear around. Women can be trained to use specialized equipment according to their skills and can be just as effective as men. It just requires an impartial view of each genders’ strengths and weaknesses.
My good friend, a retired Army instructor with tours in Iraq, told me the issue is how women change the culture in platoons and service.
Imagine throwing a woman into the utter horror of Pelilu. Men trying to deal with something like that dont need the added stress of a woman in their midst. Remember too that soldiers are 18-19 without extensive experience dealing with women.
I was told by a woman in the military that women get raped and harassed and nobody cares or does anything.
If it's anything like work in the real world women make it about sex and attraction - areas where they can perform and don't have to do much
💯💯💯💯 the culture is weakened and the mission is highly unfocused
@@dmiller2036💯💯💯 thank!
High testosterone levels amongst the males and easy soft Oklahoma 2s (females) getting newly discovered attention from the opposite sex... Smh unnecessary distractions ought to be discluded
It is an absolute joy to watch two intelligent people
AMEN!!
Always - it is very rare 👌
None from the far left 🤔😉
i didn’t know who she was until today. apparently she’s on a terror watchlist for her deals with Asaad and Putin. also she gives me trans vibes…i’m not sure she’s a woman.
"Intelligent" is the new "Transgressive".
Where? Oh, right, lowered standards.
(as an Infantryman) .. Everyone misses the point here. It has nothing to do with personal performance (when you tear it down to its most fundamental aspect). In infantry roles, women simply add a negative element to the comradery (comaraderie) of the men. It's a net negative.
We see this throughout history.. and you can see it in practice in all aspects of life regarding tight groups of men.
Even if we didn't need to lower standards, the negative effect would still exist. Lowering standards is just an additional negative to the overall mission.
Wow sexist much? I’m all for one high standard in the military but to say a blanket statement about women like that is pure ignorance and stupidity.
@gabbyyeargain I am correct, sorry.
@@BickleyLTO you are so correct that you are an sexist, misogynistic and ignorant.
@@gabbyyeargain If stating what should be obvious to any objective observer makes me sexist, well, I guess I am. Tell you what, when women can whip me at arm wrestling, they can be in combat arms, be cops, firemen, etc. Until then, I'll just be a 'sexist'n and you can continue to be an un-realist.
@@BickleyLTO you’re totally correct in that you are sexist and misogynist and not to mention ignorant in thinking that men cannot hold themselves accountable for their own “distracting” thoughts.
The Israeli military studied women in combat and found that captured female soldiers are significantly more valuable to the enemy. Also, men tend to not follow orders when women are in danger and will do what it takes to protect the women, perhaps endangering themself, others and perhaps the fate of their nation. It has been argued that men should be trained otherwise. What is the cost of training men to disregard their instincts to protect women?
💯💯💯💯
You can't make Men DNA let go of it those specific men who fighting for their nation with so much love, aggression to protect their country people and families well beings, with brother soliders feeling of letting go comes from knowing he would do the same in case you were caught cause it's for greater good and he actually wanted it as well before his life end in enemy lines but with female instincts kicks in
I wonder if this has to do with male disposability.
Lol i wouldnt care.Shes captured? Oh well.
@@AnimalAlmighty you aren't a disgusting misogynist as long as you change the she to he in that sentence and mean it equally.
As an AF officer (40 years ago) I attended army parachute training. There were minimally acceptable standards for sit-ups, chin-ups and squats. Women were just being introduced. The standards were reduced. That is the truth. Every other position in the military should be open but NOT COMBAT.
I am a woman of 68 years, always thought women don't belong in the combat department in Military.
Rights come with responsibility, Equality means equality.
As a man, I would not take all the dangerous, nasty jobs so females could have all the good jobs. Screw that, let women do all the jobs in the military.
Also a female soldier can be raped quicker than a male GI. Of course a male GI can of course be raped by a man, but in the middle East or other Muslim countries a man wouldn't be raped by a man
I agree completely. You really have to wonder about a country that allows women to fight his wars.
I’ve had this conversation with friends that served in combat in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and other places that they couldn’t tell me. Every single one of them said women don’t belong in combat. They can’t pull their weight. They don’t meet the same qualifications the men have to.
Having been in combat I agree but many men who were in combat with me couldn't pull their weight either. I also believe that it is very possible there could be a few women who could. Merit based with correct standards based on the specific job is the best qualifying factor.
@@rikpontician8499 bullshit
Some of the elephants in the room that aren't talked about are: sexual attraction among soldiers, shared showers, barracks, or just space in general....men wanting to save women, menstrual cycles, etc. It seems that the conversation is nothing but landmines to step on. A hardcore enemy of all men doesn't deal with any of that. At a very basic level - do you use resources to provide some separate spaces to women? If not, how does that realistically work? If the unit is filthy and tired and arrives at a river, does everyone peel off and jump in?
Women are physically and mentally unable to keep up with men. Even if you find an Amazon female, adding her to the team degrades the team's effectiveness.
@@mikegraham4255exactly. This is just as important and everyone overlooks this and just focuses purely on the standards. It’s about the social/psychological factors as well which have a big impact on the overall mission
Thanks!
As a retired Firefighter ive been able to work with many brilliant women. Their roles were primarily in EMS which is where they excel. When entering a burning building on a search and rescue mission you have to be confident that your partner has the ability to drag your sorry butt out of the building. This is for the safety of all concerned. Everyone goes through to same physical agility testing. You must meet all the criteria!
@@johnwesner3935 reality. The young generally can do it.the older,30+ getting soft and out of shape. Getting those pouches. If the woman is there she will drag your sorry ass out too. It may be harder,but she will not let you die or die trying to do it. Men think women do not have courage,do not have the same love of country,the same feeling to defend and keep what we have,the same love of people,Adrenalin that kicks in in emergency or when in danger. Well they do. They have the same love of life and survival. Biggest issue there is culture of a man will be there to save and protect. In fact they are not. You are alone and need to defend yourself,by yourself. The reason it generally ends up badly is girls are not taught how to defend and take care of themselves and be prepared for a predator.
I would emphasize "ALL" in your last sentence
I’m a man and know my limitations and would never want to be a firefighter for the reason you mention. I’m 75 but even when I was a young paratrooper in Vietnam I had physical limitations
Youre right the testing is the same, but its been proven, women can fail said test and still become a firefighter. Now, it could be what you said about theyre usually the ones on EMS. It does lessen the effectiveness of the station if a third of your people physically can't go into a building and carry out a 230lb+ person, at the very least, drag them out.
Women were build for giving a birth..as some say its their primary fight.
men are build to be firefighters enginners, architectors.
Probably even animals in nature wouldnt live in harmony if both genders would do same stuff, instead complement each other with different tasks.
As a woman and retired firefighter I can attest to the fact that no matter how tough you think you are as a woman, an out of shape man of equal height is much stronger!
In my prime I was a power lifter and very athletic. I could out lift, out run, out climb most and keep up with the guys.
My muscles were to much for my tendons to handle. My body started to break down. I’m now old and I’ve had 20+ orthopedic surgeries!
I’m no feminist I just loved doing the same thing guys enjoyed. Had women been able to sign up for combat duty back in the day I would have been at the front of the line!
Being older and wiser now I know women should NOT be allowed to fight on our front lines. Also standards should never be lowered in any way for the military, law enforcement or fire departments along with others!
Amen, my joints and tendons are shot 'doing the job, so I could earn the pay.'
@@broncogirl8232 men are right there with you,suffering similar. We all get wiser and wish we had used our young bodies better.
I had to admit that too as a shelf stocker in a grocery store. I had the heaviest aisle and I could do it and I was in very good shape, but I finally asked a fat guy on a weaker aisle to trade me because he could throw frozen fish boxes over his head like it was nothing and they were hurting my back sometimes.
They keep saying they are better than men and if they want to vote, they should be responsible for it. No more just men being EXPENDABLE, they should be too. Make no men units where they always go first, keep the men safe at home. No more fields at the VA with only men's names on them.
That is a common problem Estrogen makes women's tendons way more flexible but they have a much higher injury rate. My thoughts are this: Women have nothing lost at the front lines. All studies have showns that all male teams are way more effective. But you should play to their strenths. There are other jobs too. Radio operator? Air traffic controller? Everything that requires organization and multitasking women usually excel at.
I think she did answer it...if the person has the skill and capability, have been tested and demonstrated they have the ability to do the job, and are the best equipped to do the job, then they should be placed there. That standard, by it's very realism, will absolutely rule out a majority of women and a percentage of men.
THIS
I have an issue with that answer, which was fairly rational in itself.
How do we prevent people from down the line softening the standard? That's pretty much how we got where we are today.
We had standards for police officers, firemen, soldiers, etc, and they all got softened over time. First to include crappier men that just get by, to eventually women. Then you get the people who purposely soften the standard to gain political points.
As it is, 99.99%(if not 100) of women are useless for combat, the number is high enough that we benefit more from discarding the option altogether than to allow the possibility of a 0.01% exceptional lady to make it in, because leaving that door open guarantees the softening of the standard isn't far away, for all the wrong reasons mentioned above.
@@user-iu1ru1qz7u I get your concern, but at the end of the day, saying "you need to be male" is ALSO a standard, and can be changed by people down the line as well.
The answer to this kind of questions, IMHO, is: we need to recover the principle of teleology. Things exists FOR SOMETHING. Armed Forces exist to WIN WARS. Anything that makes them better AT THAT should be the standard.
The same applies to sex (it exists to propagate the species), and the same applies to everything else in life. What furthers their natural objective (teleology) is good, what hinders it is bad.
Introducing a capable woman into an all man unit brings other complexities and problems besides ability.
To let that one woman in you must alter multiple things for thousands of men to attempt to maintain the same efficiency and cohesiveness.
She has to train, eat, sleep, shower, and change with men - not just on the job in combat, but in the training pipeline and when she is back home. Nobody is going to ever let hormones play a role, including her monthly fluctuation? Nobody is ever going to overextend risk to treat her differently? She's going to average the same career length as a man and never get pregnant, or always be the same strength after pregnancy?
Absolutely not.
Not worth it, especially in such a high risk environment.
@@user-iu1ru1qz7u 100% There is waste in patronizing the issue. It's not worth doing. Your argument is best.
You can’t expect her to be spot on with everything. I’ve seen so many times a woman in uniform has used herself as a way to get preferential treatment. I was threatened as a young E-3 in the Marines by a fellow E-3 female who wanted to come in and boss because she was involved with a Sergeant in the platoon. They don’t even belong in uniform in my opinion.
I really like her. She always takes care to phrase her answer perfectly, is really smart and keeps her cool. She should have a brilliant career in front of her.
She avoided answering the question.
@@ryleighloughty3307 she did answer it though. She said yes if they can pass the standards. But the standards have to reflect the reality of the job, and shouldn't be too hard or too easy. Try using your ears and the thing in between them
@@ryleighloughty3307 She answered every question you obviously did not understand what she said
@@dennisgill3459
Are you saying that I am stupid?
@@moonasha
So, if you do not like a comment, you attack the writer?
Jordan. You look so relaxed in your recent videos, and it makes me very glad. I hope things are going well. Thank you for all your help.
I served in a field unit from1980-88 when they were just starting to let women go into the field. I found that unless you had a group of women that could be self sustaining, I would get pulled away from my job/jobs to set up tents, dig latrines, slit trenches for the women PLUS I had to fulfill my own jobs as well. So they got to sit back and smoke and I got double the work, not a fan of that.
Was it there problem or the supervisor in charge. Humm
@@RVBadlands2015 If they were the right type of person for this, they'd have wanted to dig their own trenches and help their teammates no?
I had the same experience during my time in the Army from 88-96. We had 4 women in my boat unit (LCM-8) that if we had one of them on the boat crew (typically 4-5), that female had gender "seniority" to the one and only quiet and dry on the boat while off shift. That meaning, the other male crew members off shift would spend their downtime out in the weather. When we were off the boat and doing FTXs, the male soldiers would have to carry a portion of the females standard kit weight. We would have to dig their latrines, set up their tents in a female only area, and then post guard on their tent site. Every year, we all had to re-qualify for our PT tests and the female's expected passing number per event was always lower than the male counterparts were. Lastly, the female's monthly cycle would allow them to go on "light" duty. Long story short, women in the field with men were a hinderence (slowed down) the mission. There are plenty of military occupations out there that are better suited for female members. I didn't read a study to learn this, my experienced years in uniform taught me and my fellow male soldiers this same story.
@@RVBadlands2015 Oh it is ALWAYS someone ELSES fault, isn't it !
Did it ever occur to you that your CO was targeting you personally?
Introducing women to the combat environment changes the culture, and not in favor of the entire unit.
Too bad
@@AustrianPainter14 Keep that same energy when your hometown is being occupied by foreign soldiers because unit morale was destroyed by love trysts and jealousy.
My gauge on this issue is my father. He did 3 combat tours in Vietnam. He would tell me Miss, it is not a good idea, and then said this: we men will see a woman in trouble, especially an American woman, and you know what we would do? We would do what we could to save her. The reason being, she represents our wives, girlfriends, mothers, sisters, and any other female relative or friend. That would get so many killed. So, yeah, women could, but the cost is not in treasure, but blood.
You shouldn’t get to vote then
You can’t have it both ways
@@AustrianPainter14 wtf?? lmao yknow u could move to the middle east where women & young girls r treated like dehumanized trash w zero rights. never gonna happen here buddy sorry to burst ur hopeful bubble, Tulsi is living proof of that
kyler9323
First of all no they don’t, birthrates are collapsing worldwide. The average vvoman doesn’t give birth. Second of all, giving birth is not unsafe while serving is.
They need to be put in the draft or their vote revoked.. End of story
@kyler9323that makes no sense, stop putting them on a pedestal. If they want equal rights they better have equal responsibilities, they don’t get to acknowledge differences when it’s convenient for them.
You’re dad is a beta
I am a disabled VietNam veteran. There are probably five people in support of each combat troop. Women can fill these rolls. They don't have to be in combat to be effective.
I DON'T WAN'T TO CONTRODICT YOU SIR. ALL MY RESPECT TO YOU! BUT IN LIFE SURPRISING NECESSITIES MAKES US PEOPLE TO BE ABLE DOING THINGS, EVEN WE SURPRISE OURSELVES?? DID I DO YTHA - AT BASAS!
#2 - I AGREE WITH YOU, UP TPO A POINT SIR, BUT HEY, THE OPPONENT / ENEMY SU - URE WILL BE SURPRISED? WHENA WOMAN WILL TRAKE CARE OF, SEVERAL TOUGHYS??! I'M SUR YOU DO KNOW, WHAT I MEAN??!!!
Only if they are the BEST person for the job, and NOT just because they can do it at the expense of a male who could do it better.
'..these _roles_ .'
@@desbell7431lot of jobs in the military don’t have high physical fitness requirements. Checkout a navy ship sometime(not navy seals, just regular sailors). Women can do plenty of jobs just fine. Yeah, most women can be a navy seal but neither can most men. You can find jobs where 50% men can do it but less than 50% women can do it but so what. Just do everything merit based. Don’t worry about gender. Have early screenings so people can be filtered into jobs that contribute the most to society.
@@walterwilliams1791There are still many issues putting men and women together .
lowering standards is never good
case closed
next question
😊
It's incredibly hard to bring up these issues. But it is so important we do.
The PRT tests (physical readiness tests) in the military have lower standards for women. Women aren't required to do as many push ups, sit ups, and the times for running are longer for women. The physical standards for women are rock bottom in the military.
Women in infantry is a tell that your military and society is or has collapsed.
Then military service should be mandatory for all men. At least 4 years
INDEED!
Should be the exception, not the rule.
Exactly
I'm a 70 y.o. woman daughter of a mustang admiral and I TOTALLY agree with you! There's a reason why women are known as "the weaker sex" - it's because we aren't as strong as men physically or emotionally. IMO women should never be in combat.
I have heard that women in combat can be a psychological hindrance for the men due to the protective nature of these men. A woman in danger in combat compared to a man in danger can cause a pause in quick judgment for the safety of the female that can cause far more casualties. Anyone else hear this?
That’s definitely true too
So you're saying that women don't let their emotions cloud their judgment when in combat, but men do. I don't think a man too emotional to do his job should be in the military.
So its men's problem not women 😂😂😂😂😂
Just don’t integrate the teams. Problem solved. All male teams and all female teams.
@@ELFR1205 Wow, you really need to study your logical fallacies.
There’s a video of people trying out to be a firefighter.
A good sized woman ran at and shouldered a door at least 3 times, and it didn’t budge.
A regular guy, not unusually big, did the same thing.
First time he busted through.
If I was trapped inside and I needed someone to break the door down,
I’d want him.
I served in an Army MEDEVAC unit when one of the first women was assigned as a flight medic. The first woman, after completing the qualification requirements to be a flight medic, had an emotional breakdown during her very first real life mission. The second woman assigned performed spectacularly! I believe that this dynamic also exists for males as well. Not everyone can do every job.
It's not the same. We don't dispense with gender realities just because we like the tomboy, exception.
Great assessment. I deployed to Balad as basically a server administrator. I left the base within the last 3 weeks of US presence on the base and it was starting to get hairy with rocket and mortar attacks increasing. There were some of my fellow male comms teammates that requested to leave early because they were struggling to maintain their wits with the increased risk. Yet there were females that stayed and worked right along side me closing down the bases data center until the very end. Each person is different.
A flight medic doesn't run up and down hills you literally fly to where ya gotta go under the security of other attack helicopters or ISR and ground units for protection.
As a flight medic how many times did ya knock down doors? Lmfao 😂 but yes us combat killers would and do love seeing a pretty face right before we die. I thank you for your stellar service 🙏
100%. We need the same metrics for all individuals. If a woman can pass those, I trust her. If not, don't put me in a fox hole with her.
He touched on it but they didn't go deeper...The effect on the morale of fighting units severely drops if a woman/women is killed/injured in combat. When another man dies it's sad, but mainly affects the soldier's friends...When a woman dies, it affects everybody. I don't think DEI belongs in the military :(
Not the best rationale, though your point is well taken. A man's life is far too precious to be treated so lightly as (we) have been particularly throughout the 20th century. Sensitivity training on this topic should be a requirement in military training. NO female in the military should EVER be in charge of any strategic decisions regarding the safety of men on the ground!
@@regionalunityproductions6204 I think it's hard-wired into us because women are more critical for survival of the tribe. Men are hardwired to protect women so even if she's a sister-in-arms and putting herself in just as much danger as the rest of the squad, it will always hit much harder because you'll feel like you failed in your job evolutionarily.
@@regionalunityproductions6204 More Sensitivity Training?!!! Are you serious?!!!!
You chivalrous boomers are gonna have to comprise on something because this can’t go on like this. Why do they get to vote men into war without having to worry about being drafted?
@@regionalunityproductions6204 nah there are well documented accounts of women in past history leading men into battle & winning. it happens in a lot of countries surprisingly. I didn't believe until I researched it. makes sense tho. takes a very unique type of woman to do it
Requiring combat forces to be male isn't an "arbitrary" standard.
This is what people want as president. Yeah right, she is not qualified.
It is if someone meets the standard and just happens to be a woman. There are Olgas out there.
@@sagehawk12 Damn few, though.
A nation that sends its women to war when there is no shortage of men doesn't deserve to be defended.
@@sagehawk12if 99.999% of women are simply unable to measure up to men in this area, it is totally reasonable to only allow men from the start. To say otherwise is to choose to be foolish.
I agree with most what Tulsi says. That being said, as a vet myself, ANYONE who wishes to be in an elite unit MUST pass a non adjusted qualification standard! Period!! We cannot afford to send our best and bravest into harms way with “people” who have not met basic requirements. We still live in a society where men protect women and to have a women who needs extra attention on a battlefield or participating in a covert operation is nothing more than a liability that can get folks killed! I know, I know, women think they can do anything a man can, so…..it shouldn’t be a problem to qualify for those role with the exact same standard that men face. This isn’t about some boardroom at a big company, this is war! As a vet myself I can tell you that it is ugly, relentless, remorseless and nothing at all like “ call of duty”, there is no do-over, you don’t respawn in the real world and those who step up and fill those special roles deserve the best of the best of everything especially people who are immensely qualified to fill those roles and have trained EXACTLY the same as the folks they go to operate with. If it comes down to 1 out of 100 women or even 1 out of 10,000 women then so be it! This isn’t a game anyone should be toying with for optics or political correctness. 🙏🏻🇺🇸💪🏼🇺🇸⚔️🇺🇸🔥who agrees with me?
As a Navy vet I totally agree with you.
Former combat soldier here; keep women out infantry, sof, etc. Any trigger pulling ground combat units period. If you can't carry or drag any of your team mates to safety if they get hit, then you are in the wrong place. Secondly, we don't have time for your time of the month in the field and what comes with that. Plenty of other mil jobs out there for women. The women that passed Ranger school is because standards were lowered, and there is documented proof of this.
No, just stop there needs to be a set standard and if women make the standard then they should be able to fight, Tulsi went into the military after 9/11 because she wanted to fight for her country, she should not be denied because she is a woman, but she shouldn't be accepted if she had to meet an easier standard compared to men, so I think if women and men can meet the standard then they should be allowed, this will probably lead to more men in combat but there will still be some women
@Evan-ni7hb Gabbard's MOS was not combat arms - she was 31b Military police. Later she served in Civil Affairs. If you read my comment and understood the military - Combat MOS: 11x Infantry, Ranger, Mortars etc - SEALs 5326 (NEC) -18x Green Berets...I'm not going through all the branches. Not only that, Gabbard was National Guard; however, she did deploy, but not in a combat role capacity.
@@Evan-ni7hb The "set standard" is whether or not you can withstand hand to hand combat with a 250 pound jihadist who want's nothing more than to die for Allah.
Women have less bone and muscle density therefore the amount of caloric intake and testosterone supplements required to ensure they are hand to hand combat capable would make it logistically wasteful. The drawbacks far outweigh the benefit of "no hurt feelings because of equity".
Weapon systems universally utilized through the branches: m249 17lbs, 240b 27 lbs, 203 - 40mm grenades roughly .5 lbs and times that by 12 and over. Guys rock'n on a machine gun are priority targets. A woman will have difficulty employing these weapon systems in a dynamic combat environment.
@@Evan-ni7hb Tulsi served in a medical unit - not the front lines. Even if a woman meets the standards for men - they are not the same. The mind is not the same, the body is not the same, the reaction time is not the same, the initial "instinct" is not the same, the daily needs are not the same.
Men's absolute lowest basic requirements allow them to do things that would kill a woman - no matter if she is just as fit. They are not the same.
1. Serving is a privilege, not a right; and jobs should be based on need, not opportunities.
2. Not all combat roles are equal.
3. If combat unit commanders can articulate a NEED for women in a certain role, so be it.
4. Thankful for the men and women who have served.
1. if it's a privilege then why do men have to sign draft cards?
2. Clueless comment
3. Another clueless comment
4. Only thankful for those *combat* veterans (people sign up for selfish reasons, duh)
These new "right-wing Feminists" have started to infiltrate our movement
Serving was not a privilege for those of us who were conscripted. It was a privilege I for one could have done without.
Ah, but you're misunderstanding the purpose of the US military. It's not a meritocratic task oriented entity. It's a jobs program. Both directly in that it will hire basically anyone with two feet and a heartbeat. And indirectly through the geographically (and thus politically) widespread defense industry.
@@Nomenius1 can't argue with ya, it's certainly went that way. Let's give Pete his 4 years and reevaluate.
Serving is a privilege?
So why is my name in a draft against my will?
It isn't just the standards however. It is the relationship between men and women, under stress, specifically combat, and how that interferes with unit effectiveness.
Used to be the same with mixing races or different backgrounds in a unit lol.
Seems we can overcome that with.... training
Or do you think people forget their countless hours of training because one of them has a womb??
As a male Vietnam vet, I cannot understand how any man can condone the idea of having women defend their home & family.
@jimdandy9671,
Do you think all women are dainty and fragile?
You’re kidding. Half of you get off on women owning guns
I am a man and I want women to pull their weight. They’ve had it too good for too long.
Woman are Liability in Combat....The Priority becomes to Protect the Woman than to Complete the Task....A Captured Woman is Demoralizing
That's a consideration, but I think it should be the woman's decision whether she wants to place herself in that situation, assuming she can meet the standard. No question, being captured is going to be way worse for a woman than a man.
I think the biggest liability is the risk of relationships forming and that immediately changes the order of priority.
@@thadofalltrades No, it's not her decision. If combat effectiveness increases with mixed personnel then fine. The Marines did a study and that wasn't the case. Mixed personnel faired worse in combat scenarios.
@@thadofalltrades Disagree. Women should not be in combat. Women should be in support roles only, well away from the front lines. If a man is down, his fellow male soldiers have the strength to retrieve him. A women soldier does not. She is a liability.
@rlhicks1 that's a different argument though. That goes into standards. That's not what I was addressing. If you set standards and a woman meets them, she should be permitted to participate and it's her choice to do so. If the standard is no women in combat scenarios then the discussion is over.
@@rlhicks1Fair point. I agree
My concern with women in the military, especially combat, is they are a distraction. sorry to others that will complain about it but it's reality when you have a team full of men they all get in order and know what their job is to do and they fulfill it even when the ones that don't do the job they are taken care of one way or another. you can't do that to a woman like you can to a man it's just ain't going to happen. Men know they have a responsibility to defend and protect women, and if you put them in harm's way, that's where the distraction comes in.
I've said this so many times. Much to the consternation of people in our modern culture. Honorable men will absolutely treat a woman differently than they will a man. It is innate and will probably never change. Add to that the specific hygiene needs of a woman and the sexual tension, and it's not a recipe for success. It may be workable, but it's not optimal. Optimal should be the goal. This ain't a social club we're talking about. It's life or death.
Sadly i dont think as many men have that instinct any more. The amount of men demanding women be drafted proves that those men anyway, have no instinct or desire to protect women. Respectable men will always want to protect women and children but we are losing our way as a society
100% agree
Just don’t integrate the teams. That solves the problem completely. All male teams and all female teams.
No women in combat units, period, it affects unity and combat effectiveness. Physicality is a prime requisite.
Probably not many remember during the early push towards Baghdad two female soldiers got separated from their unit. Both tortured and assaulted, one soldier died the other survived but had all her leg & arm bones broken. The Iraqi doctor who sought out an American army unit to save the surviving soldier was given asylum in the U.S. for him and his family for his efforts.
@@vinny2195 thank you for your comment and not tearing down the women for being.
I remember that story very well. The woman who was rescued was named Jessica Lynch, and the other was a Native American woman named Lori who left children behind. The press celebrated Lynch's rescue, but the story of the serious physical and emotional in juries she was left with didn't come out until later. What kind of animals "grape" dying women? That heroic Iraqi do ctor who risked his life to save Lynch is an exceptional human being.
Yeah, so.
Do male soldiers not get tortured?
@@NMemonethis is the reality of war, we are living in a very harsh Universe not in some utopia fantasy world
So? A woman’s life is not more valuable than a man’s.
I’m a woman & I don’t think women should be in combat or police officers. We aren’t strong enough to take on men & it puts the woman & her fellow officers in danger.🤷🏼♀️
Plus, that’s not even taking into account how a woman can be a distraction to men in a military base.
Then you shouldn’t be allowed to vote either
@@AustrianPainter14two things are true
@@AustrianPainter14 if giving up my right to vote meant we kept the right people in govt, I’d gladly give it up. Most women tend to vote democrat bc they’re emotional & the left uses that against them.
Carey86
Not good enough. We both know this day will never come and you have zero intention of giving up your vote. We have to take it from you.
@@AustrianPainter14 yeah, that’ll never happen.
It’s common sense. Women should not be in combat roles. We have different sports teams for a reason. If we’re willing to fight for separate sports teams in America because of performance on a court, we should fight for male only combat roles to keep our soldiers alive and to win the war.
Atilla the Hun would like to join the chat. Women can fight.
Russia and China all have women in combat roles. There is definitely an overlap with male and female ability and performance. Let’s not make sweeping decisions and look at the qualities you need just like they say.
@@ryangonzalez3225 But can the woman pull me 5miles to safety if my leg gets blown off? If the answer is no, I dont want to fight with her.
So only males should die for your rights? Interesting
just send AI robots and drones, human military is obsolete
In about 1982, in Germany, we had a monthly Status report showing that 4% of my 3rd Infantry Division was pregnant. That 4% was not deployable. Is that anyway to run an army?
If it's not fair for women to play a game/ sports against a man....then how in the hell is it ok and effective for women to fight in combat against a man??? When it's life or death and not just game where you go back home in a couple hours. Explain that insanity to me. WTF
Agreed! 💯
Best argument yet .
in terms of physicality you got a point thing is in combat you dont have to pit a womans physical strengt against a man all a woman needs to be able to do is shoot the other person.
but in terms of beeing able to drag youre comrade away then ya you got a point.
Because when soldiers invade your country they don’t care about whether it is fair or not. War is not about fairness, it’s not entertainment.
This is a shit argument. Sports are for fun and entertainment. There are separate sexes in athletics because it would be wholly unfair to keep all women out of athletics except the ones who can compete with men. War is an entirely different thing. No average woman wants to be spec war. Separate male teams and female teams is the way to go in this regard. Let me ask you this… if we just relegate all women to the same physical allowances and don’t create strong fighting women with immense war fighting capabilities, what happens if we get invaded? All Americans will be warriors then.
I'm a former Combat Medic, all women are held to a massively lower standard for physical fitness. This is were the issues start. They should have to pass with the same physical standards as the males do for the same job. This is for both military, law enforcement and fire.
I'm all about basing things on merit 👏
Women do not belong in physical combat regardless of merit.
That is only the first step.
Unless it’s affirmative action
Women as support, but not in combat. The average woman could not pick up a wounded man and carry him in a combat situation. She has never had to do that......but I sill she is a great pick for the job she has been selected for.
You'd be surprised what humans can do when the adrenaline is flowing. There are many reported instances of women lifting cars when a loved one is trapped underneath. Adrenaline is a hell of a thing.
I don't think the average woman as you put it would even consider enlisting though.
@@Crimsonedge1 There are also reports of alien abductions and unicorns. Don't believe everything you read.
They can be pilots.
@@Crimsonedge1 It's true that adrenaline helps with physical strength, but those reports are not the same as women bicep curling 1000 pounds; instead, it's usually just a fraction of the weight of the vehicle, which is still impressive, but not the weight of the whole car. Additionally, the muscles which are activated to 100% usage are very likely to be severely damaged, and the "strength boost" does not last nearly long enough for combat situations. Combat is not about a single 5 second window of increased strength and stamina, rather, combat is about continuously increasing requirements for high level of mental, emotional, and physical strength and stamina.
Anybody can insult me as much as they want. Women do not belong on the front line. They should be able to undergo training to protect themselves but is unconcionable to put women front line . I will die on this hill.
Sorry bur they do. Or you take their right to vote away
Can’t have it both ways
@AustrianPainter14 we have had women voting and not be in the front lines before and we can do it again.
JesseJurun
lol that’s not working out. It’s not fair and you know it
I think the biggest detriment to women in combat is not the physical or mental standards, but the fact that putting a woman into a team of men can significantly change the group dynamic in a way that can decrease the efficacy of the group.
I’m a vet, I’m also a woman, I don’t believe 99% of the women that I was with would not want to be on the front lines. I don’t think we were physically able to do that job. But, if a woman could pass the same PT scores as men, but not lowered for women scores, then I say yes. But the standards for women are always lower for females..
I was in Iraq. I remember our company decided to make all the women do paperwork jobs. While all the guys did convoy security, for various reasons our platoon got down to 11 people (similar numbers in other platoons), so we ended being very overworked. So why not have the females go out? I even asked the women, and every single one said they wouldn't mind going out, but they never let them. So I got worked like a dog, when I didn't need too.
You can't risk people's lives just to be politically correct. All studies have shown that all-male teams always outperform mixed teams. It's a no brainer. Even the strongest woman is way weaker than the average guy. Testosterone is a controlled substance for a reason. Play to women's strengths though! There are plenty of jobs at which women excel like air traffic controller or radio operator.
@@roadbone1941 Because after about an hour outside the wire women are complaining and whining. You are all nothing but an annoyance and a hinderance and do not belong next to Infantryman.
Understand completely and thank you for your service. If I had a daughter I could never let her join the military especially being in combat. The majority of countries we would be going against have only men in their military so what if the women were captured? I don't think this is fair for women and is just an agenda.
How many KIA? You’re not an actual vet
38 years as a soldier, sailor and professional firefighter, I have seen some things. I have seen women who couldn't rack a round into the M2 even though they were the gunner. I have seen the fire department lower physical standards so women could pass, lowering most of the upper body strength tasks and I have seen hanky panky on Navy ships because 20 somethings couldn't wait until the next port visit. It's a mess.
I know men who cannot load a round,cannot meet the physical. And culturally things need to be changed back to when the intellectual standard was not at the level of caveman,personal gratification of physical need. In this time of advanced times ,you would think we would be on a more elevated intellectual level. But ,no,the young are being indoctrinated to girls are just a piece of meat for sex,and girls are not smart and should have sex just for fun with 20 different boys. There is the problem of boys and girls cannot be together without sex going on. No intelligence required. Need to get back to propriety of actions,modesty,respect,self respect and more. It is a whole better level of humanity.
There are male soldiers who can't do that and yet the military let's them stay in.
"I have seen women who couldn't rack a round into the M2 even though they were the gunner."
It's okay, they probably weren't going to see an actual firefight, right?
...right?
if a man and women are fighting side by side and the woman gets shot or injured, the man can carry them out oif the line of fire to safety.... A woman COULD NOT pick up a 220lb man and carry them to safety... maybe drag them out of the line of fire, but you would end up with 2 dead soldiers... they are NOT physically capable.. period
This. Is. A. Fact.
Neither could all men. As she said, single selection standard for men and women who want to serve. If you meet it your in.
@RonniePeterson women couldn't meet it, that's the only reason it changed
I am female and was an Army medic and agree. Job assignments and training and expectations need to be realistic. I would have had to drag a wounded soldier out, no way I could carry one.
@@RonniePeterson stop simping brah.. it wont help you
The problem is that a women who meets the same standard still throws off the social construct of a unit.
My dad was a WW 2 airman in the 8th Air Force, shot down over Germany and captured. 16 months in. POW camp transformed a healthy 170 pound man into a 98 pound skeleton on the verge of death when liberated. He and I had many detailed discussions about his time in captivity and there were many horrors that he was the victim of. He was an extraordinary man who lived with his PTSD the best he could. He was an excellent provider to me and my siblings and set an example of honesty, hard work and patriotism. But one can now see how troubled he was from his wartime experience. I do not believe it is wise to put any woman in this possible environment due to the obvious additional physical risks from potential enemy sexual predators. I beg our military to not put our treasured women, the possible mothers of our people, in this kind of harms way. No way is this a good idea. I guarantee my father would be against the notion of women in front line combat because of this.
Yes and here is a very important issue that most have missed. A woman's first responsibility in society is to keep the population up which is a tough and time consuming role. In all out war in which there would be no civilians a savvy commander would make women the prime target; Ultimately no female soldiers, then no male soldiers, anywhere. The war is over.
My concern is that people think this level of depravity and soulless behavior is something the modern world wouldn't see like "the old days". There are two guarantees in every war since the very first one in human history all the way to the last: 1) War brings out the absolute worst in humanity and 2) The monsters created in war were really not meant to be there and are only there at the behest of the rich and powerful - the true monsters of our world.
We think war is a civilized necessity. I only see it as a direct correlation to wealth and power.
Your father was an American hero who sacrificed much for this country. I hope he is well in the afterlife, or whatever version of that he believed in.
Women who are in the military chose to be there. No one is forcing Women or men to join. In the case of a war, we need as many people as we can get to fight, man or woman. Use common sense.
@@ELFR1205
Yeah?....
(Looks at the soviet union and china)
Ummmmmm....quality over quantity, you ridiculous communist.
My late grandfather who served in Marines and was in Korea during the Korean War would also be against women in combat.
I am a man. But your words match my basic feelings also. But I would prefer women far far away from fighting.
She is brilliant. I'm constantly impressed with every interview she has provided.
Two great thinkers and speakers, respecting each other and challenging each other. Not often we see that nowadays!
Thoughtfully answered.
I was glad that Jordan brought up the issue of women as potential POWs. I think whether they choose to face that eventuality men need to say no. We have lost the moral principle of men's responsibility to protect women. When men do not accept that responsibility we are lost as a nation and as a human race.
What about the Kurdish YPJ ? ? ? All women, and they kicked ISIL's ass !
IF, or when, the SHTF, women DO need to be prepared and ABLE to step up, as Russian women did during WW2 ?
Absolutely NO lowering of standards, but women HAVE to regain that ability.
The women of SOE in WW2 fought JUST as bravely as any "Man"
@@GilbertdeClare0704agreed. What we have is a severe culture issue of women not being treated with the same pressure of responsibility as men. Moreover we have a fitness issue across the country. As a female veteran I hated the segregated PT standards and often did better than some of my male colleagues without trying very hard. It comes down to discipline and your mental toughness. What makes men and women extraordinary is what they are willing to put themselves thru and endure. We need a warrior culture and I believe that would reduce the amount of sexual assaults for both men and women and the idea of personal responsibility that you carry to be a productive citizen would be very healthy and beneficial for society. Everyone needs to carry their weight.
I personally would fight harder knowing I had women in my unit that needed me. I would venture this would be true for many men that feel protective of women. Fighting harder is something that should also be considered. There’s another aspect to the morality question. Is it moral to deny someone the opportunity to do something they want to do just because they were born a female? I hear you on their views of traditional morality concerning women, but it’s not our place to tell them what they can and can’t do as long as they meet the performance standard.
That moral responsibilty is propaganda. Only the women in a man's life that help him deserve that privelege. Everyone else is owed an equal amount of respect and protection that is significantly less than what is owed to your immediate family.
A random woman is no more valuable to a man than another man.
@@the1joyster I SO, SO, SO agree with you my friend ! DEFINITELY ! It is so TOTALLY that RETURN of that Warrior Culture that is desperately needed ! I read in a Post war report that the Female Agents of SOE who were captured and tortured, on average, resisted torture BETTER than men, and hardly EVER betrayed their fellow soldiers or civilians helping them.
My Ex was better at shooting kneeling, than I was, yet prone or standing, I was better.
Driving a Russian T55 or Ferret Scout Car and SHE was the better driver of both. She also got her Hanggliding EP1 and EP2 faster than I did, yet the reverse with Skydiving.
I have seen it in my work as a Therapist that schools come down MUCH harder on GIRLS getting aggressive than boys, which TEACHES them to turn it all inwards.
LEGITIMISING that healthy assertion/aggression in our culture where all kids LEARN not to fear it but to CONTROL it, and then NO reduction in standard whatsoever, creates the BEST person for the job.
It is the TASK that matters, not whether one has a d*ck between one's legs
The Marine Corps ran a 9 month study with male only and sex mixed units. The male only units blew the sex mixed units in ALL metrics. All of them.
Our PMI’s in boot camp lied to us about women being better marksmen, and I learned it from this study. Women also get injured more often just from wear and tear.
Tulsi is spouting feminist policy. She’s simply wrong. Even if you, without lowering the standards (ALWAYS happens), get women who can meet the standards, they will not last. They’ll start falling apart and end with lifelong health issues just from trying to keep up.
There’s nothing to gain from “women in combat” except the lowering of male morale and or interest in joining. If you want more bodies for the military, making it easier and pussifying it will have the opposite effect as young men looking for a challenge will turn away.
Get this garbage out of the military!
Well said 👏
Female and AGREE. It hurts the strength of the unit. Men and women are not the same.
I don’t think she is saying that women need to be in combat units. I think she is saying that standards should not be changed to include or exclude anyone. There needs to be a set standard and leave it at that. The USMC refused to change their standards for IOC and look how that has went. I believe, at my time of retirement, 2 female officers made it through that course. We should have one set of standards across the board, including physical fitness. You either make the standard or you don’t. That will weed out the ones that can’t hack it.
I do not think women should be in any MOS that takes them hammer the frontline.
She is feminist, so is trump. Its just that the left went full crazy. It's no wonder she thinks and speaks like a feminist
I've heard from women that keeping up at such a high standard in harsh conditions led them to be infertile and now that they want kids they can't. There should at least be a very informative sign off.
I was a British soldier and when a group of men embark on a dangerous task there is a magic that happens between them. I believe it is a primordial instinct and women do not have this. The presence of women short circuits this bonding. Women are not lesser but different.
I asked my daughter this question about women serving on the front lines. She said she would go if ordered to go. She served four years in the NAVY, although she was an expert marksman she is only 5-2. Women do not belong on the front lines, even if they are capable.
Shouldn't be allowed to vote either
@@genecoppedge5972 the navy is not the shooters. They don’t go to the range. There is nothing for them to shoot on the high seas.The marines have always been the fighting force for the navy and protected the ships. The navy is our transporter.😂
If you're within rifle range you're doing modern naval warfare wrong.
@ Wow you’re so far off the point they were making. Come on try and focus on the subject matter here. It’s not a question about the branch of military the question was, “should women be on the front lines?” You sound Kamala, “not a thing is coming mind”
@ You have no idea what you’re talking about. So the Navy spend all their time on the high seas? You’re hilarious. Another one that sounds like Kamala, “not a thing is coming to mind” are you on meds that makes your mind wonder aimlessly? Even stupid dialogue is protected by the first amendment, so don’t worry your dumb speech is protected 😂
My son was career Army. He told us that women do not have the physical strength and that they get frightened when faced with combat.
Common sense should tell us that. Absolutely true
If they met the qualifications they should be given the opportunity.
I think that's definitely true in most cases. Of course there are always exceptions though. But we need to hold them to the same level of scrutiny we do with men.
@@RVBadlands2015 They can't meet the male standards.
The only women I noticed could handle it were a few lesbians, but even they didn't have the upper body strength.
As a woman, I don’t like her answer.
Women should not be in combat. Plain and simple. She beats around the bush.
Should you vote?
@morgans7785,
I think what you said is coming from not realizing that no two women are exactly the same. You seem to think that all women are dainty and fragile. Did you know that some countries have women that fight in combat? I think Israel is a good example.
She does doesn't she? Thank you for putting that into words. It seems to be a favorite of hers to " beat around the bush ".
She couldn't be more clear.
If a woman can meet the same fitness standards required as men then she should be allowed. No one is making you fight. Let the women who fit the same qualifications as men be in combat.
This is such an incomplete conversation. What about administering discipline? Morale? Sexual temptation and misconduct?
“Can you carry enough weight?” Is such a superficial benchmark
Women and men are very different things
The standards are there for a reason and should not be adjusted.
As an old Nam Vet all I wanted was someone who could/would do their job and do it well. I wasn't trained to bake cookies and do needle point.
@@le13579 Twist words, much?
@@jdilksjr No, but arguing with a Vietnam vet is poor form on my part. So I'll delete my words.
I think she's right; everyone needs to achieve the same standard. Women fought in the Civil War disguised as men and did a good job of it. The problem comes when the standards are changed "to allow more women to take the job," which has been the case in the US military for decades.
why are you arguing the exception, not the rule?
@@GummeeH3why are you assuming that women can’t do the job at all ? How fit are you ?
It also promotes disharmony when your primary groups measure is being undermined inorder to "promote" numbers, especially when this scoring also affects your chances of promotion.
any time a standard is lowered to include anyone, the product is diminished, and this could mean life or death
@@Kroh13hahahaha
Refreshing to hear two accomplished people have an intelligent conversation.
THIS!! 100%. I recently retired from the Marine Corps and this is a very holistic conversation that gets at what the military has done - identify occupational specialty standards and uphold them, so we have a true meritocracy and have the best and most fully qualified in all occupations, from all demographics.
Yes, you nailed it, "occupational specialty standards". A woman fighter pilot who downed a drone was just awarded the first ever air combat medal to a female. She met that standard, which is quite different than an infantry standard. Just common sense.
I agree with TG and if a person meets the standard they should be able to do that job, but DO NOT lower the standard for anyone. It takes a special person to enlist in the military, another kind of special to want to enlist in infantry, and then it gets even more special for any sort of special forces. The standard should weed out the weak, period.
if a woman can pick up and carry a 220lb man out of the line of fire, so be it, but unless it is the late Joanie Laurie (Chyna from WWE) people will die
Women can't do the job, that's why the standard is there. And women can't reach the standard, that's why they were lowered. Women do not deserve to be in combat positions.
Her perspective is quite reasonable but there are additional reasons to select men that simply don't have to be measured when you select only men such as bone density. The reality is that women are simply far more expensive to train and deploy for jobs such as infantry because they spend so much time injured.
@@stochastic42 I'm not an expert of which sex is more expensive to train or deploy. If a woman is integrated that means she is imbedded with men, she doesn't get her own berthing area or head area (bathroom). There should not be a special berthing area based off gender. She doesn't get special time off because she gets her period, she doesn't get to go back to the rear and shower because she's been bleeding for 7 days and smells bad...That is a part of being an infantryman. If a woman wants to be integrated in an infantry unit or in a predominantly male unit, she is lodged with that unit, period. The unit deploys together, they are out in the field for as long as the the op calls.
Do I agree with this completely? Not at all! But this is what anyone that wants this needs to know and based off my experience in the military this is a BAD idea...But if a woman or man wants to do this and can meet the standard, then they should have the exact opportunity regardless of sex as long as they meet or exceed the standard. I think all weak people should be weeded out for tough jobs.
.
Based off my time in the Marine Corps and deploying and then having children while active duty; women and men deploying together in combat zones pose many obstacles and I went from totally for this in the early 2000's to the exact opposite in 2010.... like i said, I have my personal opinions based off my experiences but as long as the standard DOES NOT change and a woman can meet it, I think women shouldn't be DQ'd for it simply because they are a female.
I like Tulsi, but women should not be in combat, end of story. They can help in many valuable roles, but we do not need to put women in harms way, that's a societal mindset.
I wish more people had your perspective. Sometimes what happens is that women hear that the only valuable jobs are on the front line and tend to go for those specific roles out of a genuine desire to be as useful as possible. If other roles weren’t looked down on so frequently I think we’d see a shift in that.
Why not?
Does a womb stop people from being effective in fights?
@@Reflectionmaterial YES, YES IT DOES I say this based on 25 yrs in Special Forces, 10 yrs in law enforcement, 5 yrs in EMS, 50 yrs as a martial arts instructor. YES, YES IT DOES. YOU ALL SEEM TO MISS THE POINT. GET PAST THE DAM SOCIAL EXPERIMENT, PAST HE WOKE, PAST THE STUPIDITY
@@Reflectionmaterial
It's the female body that's attached that is the issue.
@@greenbeenie2 so it's all about gender, not the person and what he or she can do?
Thank you both for your service
What a lady, the complete package!
Everywhere except home where she was needed
@@salty-tomato WHAT DO YOU MEAN? WOULD YOU EXPLAIN, PLEASE SO I CAN LOOK FOR INFORMATION? THANKS.
That is the only answer:
The best PERSON for the job.
In the military, law enforcement, fire fighters EVERY member will have to carry a collegue or victim from danger one day and a 140 pound male because of his PHYSIOLOGY will be able to do that better than a 140 lbs female. Because WE ARE BUILT DIFFERENTLY.
I've never served but two quick stories. My dad was in the 11th airborne in the early 50's. At the time the army was going through desegregation. He served with black troopers. His observation was that while they might have not been liked by everyone they were respected by everyone. Training and selection were tough. If you made it you you made it.
Fifty some years ago I took an Outward Bound course. A tiny bit like paying to go through basic training but you went home after 23 days. Crews consisted of 12 to 13 students and two instructors. Crews could be all male, all female or mixed. This was the 70'sand women's lib was coming on strong. I asked instructors how this all worked out.
Their take was that mixed crews OVERALL did well and they preferred mixed crews. All male crews tended to be very macho and didn't listen well. That was an issue on ropes courses, climbing, rappelling and whitewater canoeing. The potential for serious injury was there.
All women crews had teamwork issues, were not as mentally and physically resilient and had a lot of tears.
Mixed crews tended to balance out strengths and weaknesses. THIS WAS NOT combat.
Maybe I’ve been watching too much whatever podcast but seeing a woman who can who can articulate their thoughts with intellect is so refreshing.
You definitely have. Women who support Trump are a whole different breed and we definitely exist. Maybe change what you listen to.
So long as the test is the test and not the test "but we need women, so we can waive this requirement".
That’s wokery that Trump will root out, which is why he picked Pete Hegseth for Secretary of Defense.
Along with having the mental and physical requirements for the job, you have to look at the overall effectiveness and casualty rates of mixed sex units vs all male units, and even all female units. Then follow the data. Mothers shouldn't have to grieve their lost children for social engineering.
Obviously all male units will perform the best.. if the women have a lower physical performance standard than the men they end up becoming a hindrance to the team making it a less effective unit as they wont be able to carry their own weight.. in frontline combat at least
Why do people keep assuming the best option is to have mixed units? That is clearly not the right call. All male units and all female units. That is absolutely obvious to me.
@@sidneybuckaloo But then you'd need all Gay Men units and all Lesbian Women units, too.
@ that makes no sense. There aren’t all gay male units now.
@ ?
The men get distracted to protect women during combat.
In an ambush/IUD blast I really doubt you have time to check the gender of the person next to you
i think a professional won't get distracted by that in serious situations.
In combat, it's not a courtessy rumba?? ! It's discipline - quick witt / thinking! And a whole lot of, common sense! HHMMM?WHAT? WHAT?! WHATS? - THAT PATRIOT'S . . OH - O YES, LIKE Lt. Col. GABBARD !!🗽
@@TolgaAtamtuerk If I was in combat with someone who looked like Tulsi next to me, Yes I and many other Men would be distracted...even if it's for a second...that's when someone could get killed
@@arronmac2925then YOU don’t belong in the military if you’re that mentally weak!
I love the line of questioning from Jordan...especially the last one...straight to the point...Tulsa struggled to answer the last one but she did give a good answer
SET STANDARDS. People are not equally skilled. Thank you Tulsi Gabbard.
Allow women the choice to go into the military, but don’t place them in a position to put others at risk
Women are for nature and nurture not for aggression and roids.
Perfect way to put it💯
Perhaps that's gilding the lily. Some women are very aggressive and need a healthy outlet; have you seen roller derby or women's rugby?
I think the bigger issue is the devaluation of motherhood by women.
And you think a man is for aggression and raids, that's all they are good for?
BUT DEGENERATES ARE MAKING WOMANS " machos " AND MAN INTO a thing that they call " trans " or whatever.
I'm stunned 💯👈 we need this kind of persona.
In my neighbourhood recently there was a wood chopping carnival, women were competing against the men. The stark contrast between women and men in the competition was very, very evident.
The women were struggling to cut through the first half of the log when the men had finished cutting right through their logs, not only that they had to rest in between chopping strokes on their second half of the logs. A bloke in his seventies was competing against the women and he still finished way ahead of them.
The ladies were all in their twenties and large but they didn’t have the physical stamina and strength as the men
Chopping wood for a one time carnival is very different than training for combat. Women and men who are in the military train for it, the average man or woman will not have the same abilities as a woman or a man in the military. You are far too old to be that ignorant.
Thankfully we are not in the early Bronze Age and we have much more developed tools. Now if in theory, your neighborhood was in the path of an invasion, and you were trying to set up defenses, wouldn’t you want everyone able to lift a chainsaw or a handsaw cutting wood? Modern warfare is not a strength contest between individual soldiers. One of the greatest combat advantages of both the the Soviet Union and the UK in WW2 is that they had trained both women and older men in many small towns to hold off the Germans. This was the only method that allowed them to slow and then stop the German takeover of Europe. In the case of the UK, the Battle of Britain was fought mainly by pilots and anti aircraft gunners, and that was the only role where women participated in the fighting. In the Soviet Union women were gunners, snipers and pilots, all roles that depend more on skill and ability to manage the machines than on brute strength.
@ the women who were in the wood chopping carnival actually were members of a wood chopping group and trained for the events.
The issue was the difference in strength and endurance between the men and women, there were a couple of blokes who were slim but wiry that started after the ladies as it was a time based race.
The bloke who started last finished before everyone else did as he literally blitzed the log in half. Training is in how you train , it’s the attitude.
I know women who are trained martial arts fighters and can kick most men’s arses in a fight including mine , but some of them told me that when it comes to fighting a man who is a trained fighter they would lose . For the men are just physically stronger then they are.
As for myself I’m not trained in any form of martial arts but have beaten blokes bigger than me in fights and I am quite skinny, the difference was I had strength from working very physical jobs since I was a kid. Not only that I had the mental strength to ignore the pain and fight like an animal when I needed to .
Women are very capable in a lot of ways , but physically compared to men , no.
Combat isn’t just about physical strength it’s also mental strength, for when you’re fighting for your life , you have to do what it takes to survive.
One can shoot a rifle and a gun at someone from a distance and there are lots women who are excellent shooters, there are women who are capable pilots and sailors.
But when it comes down to the reality of close quarter combat and hand to hand fighting that’s where reality hits and a lot of women will lose as will a lot of men.
@@gabrielamora6265 very true and I have worked on farms and knew women who were strong and capable of doing the heavy lifting and hard work. There were women flying bombers and fighters in WW2 , particularly in the Soviet Union and there were female snipers as well.
Women have fought for centuries that’s a fact , and there are women who are trained in martial arts that can kick my arse in a fight .
The issue is the lowering of the physical standards in training in order to get women into the military is just plain stupid and dangerous. Warfare isn’t just about brute strength and you are right there , it’s also psychological, outsmarting the enemy in battle.
The harsh reality is that on the whole women aren’t physically stronger than men, but then again men don’t give birth which is something that thankfully we cannot do.
As a friend of mine told me, she said that if you have never given birth to a baby then you don’t know what pain is, which makes it more incredible that women want to have another baby after the first one .
But in the nitty gritty, dirty reality of a life and death battle of hand to hand combat, if the women had not been trained to a high standard but with lowered expectations then they are dead. The same goes for men, combat doesn’t care about equality or climate change and when you hear the bullets flying past you , you hit the ground hoping that you don’t get hit . Then someone starts throwing mortar rounds into the mix , hmm that made things just a tad more interesting for us
So why do women get to vote?
Make the standard high. If there's a woman who can meet the standard, then great, otherwise no.
Make the standards high for the men then . I met plenty of men that couldn’t pass the tests
Stop hating on Nature.
Changing enlistment standards due to dangerously low enlistment is different than changing the underlined premise of protection built within our biological coding (DNA).
I don't think women shouldn't be allowed to enlist but, the pool of women vs. men meeting physical and mental standards will be much smaller.
Standards for combat should be across the board, any variation would directly put lives at risk.
@@Kroh13
@@Kroh13the standards are high for the men. It’s inappropriate to lower them for women.
@@Kroh13 that's true. Standards have been dropping steadily for too long.
@@Kroh13 Well, they are, the problem is right now in most physical jobs we have 1 standard for men and a different altogether for women that has much lower requirements, which is ridiculous.
I think the dynamics of having women on the front lines are much more complex than what was touched on in this video.
The feeling when she started answering with level headed intelligence that thought outside the false dichotomy, instead of screeching feelings-before-reality tribal indignation, felt like getting into a hot bath. I hadn't heard of her a week ago but I have great respect for this woman.
Standards should be Standard.
It's not about "standards"
I met the standard
But when I was on patrol as a medic in Afghanistan I was shit scared ALL THE TIME
That we'd get into the shit and I wouldn't be fast enough...or strong enough...or good enough
Standards are for training
Just good enough ain't good enough when lives are on the line
I'm grateful I never had to pass that test
Even if a combat service woman accepts and understands the horrific consequences of falling into some of our barbaric enemies hands, they are not able to mitigate the emotional impact on that woman’s fellow male soldiers. Being normal men who have developed some relationship with the women in the unit, will feel a greater obligation upon themselves to defend or offset what may happen to the woman. It’s genetics.
What effects a woman's physical, mental, and emotional stability also effects her potential children. So, it's not just a matter of what risks she's willing to take for herself at the time. Women are needed to be nurturing and stable as mothers for the sake of the new generations.
So what are men? Disposable m
Not all women can have kids?
@@ELFR1205 They have other ways of developing talents, but they may also adopt or foster children and serve in other nurturing ways. Some cultures have less reluctance toward woman going to war with men, but it's better for society for women not to join the military, whenever possible. It should be discouraged.
What about cases like the Soviet front in WW2 where a lot of the women who joined did so because their husbands, parents and/or children were killed by the Germans?
Great job and skirting around the real issues